India changes?

[Babri]

As it is, Japan is a good civ (UA is great when used properly, Samurai can get blitz or charge much earlier), Zero can definitely use an upgrade, or replacement.

Compared to India, who will have a happiness penalty early on (when it is harder to get), and a happiness buff late game (when it is pretty easy to get), doesn't work well. In addition to a very mediocre UB (culture on a building you only build in some cities, compared to Siams Wat, and gold bonus late game), and a UU which is useful for defense, but worse than useless when upgrading (and ranged promotions carry over, massive penalty to future promotion rate).

Yeah and India has one of the best UUs & Mughal fort is freaking awesome!

On a serious note, Japan is even in more need of a change than India. A UU with one more average promotion, dumbing down one of the best melee fighters, no thanks. A UU with Zero value. And a UA which was heavily nerfed in G&K.

I think Firaxis could take the idea from GEM mod. There Zero is replaced with Dojo building (barracks replacement) which provides XP trickles to garrisoned units & culture on strategic resources. And samurai starts with blitz. That makes them a very strong civ.

Similarly Indian UA is changed to gain in pop whenever a food building is built which is also quite handy.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[pilot00]

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.

And I hope it stays the way it is. Am I the only one who thinks Gandhi plays the game on equal terms with anyone else? Seems people try to play India peacefully and not as a warmongering civ.

 

[Seabastian Civ]

Am I the only one who thinks Gandhi plays the game on equal terms with anyone else?

You must be!

 

[DemonMaster]

What is so bad with India's UA. I haven't played India since a gazillion years (I play mostly Random Leader and Gandhi hasn't showed up).
If you have six cities with each six population point you will normally have 18 (cities) + 36 (pop) Unhappy, India will have 36 (cities) + 18 (pop). So let your cities grow and don't place cities in idiotic locations (nobody should).
Or have I got their UA wrong?
I remember that they talked about this in the latest Podcast (175 I think) and I remember that Maddjinn explained it and also that it is actually good, but "some people" haven't understood it. Perhaps I should listen to the podcast again.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What is so bad with India's UA. I haven't played India since a gazillion years (I play mostly Random Leader and Gandhi hasn't showed up).
If you have six cities with each six population point you will normally have 18 (cities) + 36 (pop) Unhappy, India will have 36 (cities) + 18 (pop). So let your cities grow and don't place cities in idiotic locations (nobody should).
Or have I got their UA wrong?
I remember that they talked about this in the latest Podcast (175 I think) and I remember that Maddjinn explained it and also that it is actually good, but "some people" haven't understood it. Perhaps I should listen to the podcast again.

The bad thing with India UA is that it cause a lot of problems with early expansion and conquest. And by the time you have excess happiness, all the land around is settled and elephants aren't that good.

In vanilla this was compensated by huge city growth later, but in G&K happiness is much less a problem, so India doesn't have significant advantage. After all they don't have any bonuses to growth speed, just to happiness.

 

[DemonMaster]

The bad thing with India UA is that it cause a lot of problems with early expansion and conquest. And by the time you have excess happiness, all the land around is settled and elephants aren't that good.

In vanilla this was compensated by huge city growth later, but in G&K happiness is much less a problem, so India doesn't have significant advantage. After all they don't have any bonuses to growth speed, just to happiness.

But in G&K if you don't have any problem with happiness, perhaps you should reconsider your choice of Pantheon and Beliefs.
At least I choose Pantheon and Beliefs (or I try to) that fits my idea for this game session (something that change from game to game). But that is perhaps me, I don't do the same every time I play. If Gandhi shows up when I play random leader (of if I actively choice him) I now know more what to select.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But in G&K if you don't have any problem with happiness, perhaps you should reconsider your choice of Pantheon and Beliefs.
At least I choose Pantheon and Beliefs (or I try to) that fits my idea for this game session (something that change from game to game). But that is perhaps me, I don't do the same every time I play. If Gandhi shows up when I play random leader (of if I actively choice him) I now know more what to select.

The problem is not that you have too much happiness. The problem is - others have enough happiness to not suffer a lot from big cities. So India have early-game restrictions which aren't compensated well later. Even if you ignore happiness completely and choose something else in your religion, that's not big enough bonus.

Moreover, India is the most tough civilization to found a religion - they don't have any religion bonuses, instead they had hard restrictions on city number, which greatly decrease faith production.

P.S. Surely it's possible with India to go deep beyond zero happiness early game and get enough cities - the easiest way is to use elephants to conquer neighbors. But it has drawback of stagnating growth, which doesn't help India in their ultimate goal of having huge cities by mid-game.

 

[Hulking Lummox]

I think half (pun intended perhaps?) of India's UA problem is that dealing with the happiness mechanic isn't fun or interesting in the first place. Honestly, while I respect people who have the math all figured out for expert play at India, it just isn't fun to deal with. "Okay, I am at 0 happiness.. When my pop increases will I be at 0 or -1? Let me put the game on hold to look at MATH, which is what shapes my gameplay as this civ." It's just way more fun to consider things like whether to gift a great person as Sweden than it is to take constant inventory of numbers as India.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They should change it to
Cities get +1% growth per population.
( no happiness bonuses for large cities... Just the growth bonus)

 

[crawf0rd]

They should change it to
Cities get +1% growth per population.
( no happiness bonuses for large cities... Just the growth bonus)

I could see that delightfully spiraling out of control!

 

[stealth_nsk]

I could see that delightfully spiraling out of control!

Well, I doubt this particular approach would work, but overall idea of having growth bonus which works better for smaller civ with larger cities would work. Probably some indirect approach like growth bonus and happiness from National Wonders could work...

 

[JtW]

Well, I am playing on King so the experience might be different on higher difficulties...

Seeing the constant thrashing Gandhi's UA is getting on this site, I decided to give them a try. (Haven't played them since Vanilla.) And I easily dominated!

I founded two cities and started pumping out the elephants (whatever the UU is called.) Conquered the neighboring Persia and some Babylonian cities. In the meantime, I took some happiness boosting beliefs with my religion to offset the UA. Later, when the elephants became outdated, I switched to a more peaceful play style.

Late game, I had 100+ happiness and was pumping Golden Ages like crazy. Massive science production due to high pop, too.

So: what's so bad about the Indians? They are clearly geared towards having a puppet empire and excel at that. Or does it differ on higher difficulties?

 

[stealth_nsk]

So: what's so bad about the Indians? They are clearly geared towards having a puppet empire and excel at that. Or does it differ on higher difficulties?

Consider you don't have religion, so no early happiness boost early. India is the hardest civ to found a religion (you could still get one, but need some luck). With this, having 2 cities and conquering another one most likely cause your happiness to drop below zero (depending on how well your cities grown, resources, etc.).

 

[DemonMaster]

Well, I am playing on King so the experience might be different on higher difficulties...

Seeing the constant thrashing Gandhi's UA is getting on this site, I decided to give them a try. (Haven't played them since Vanilla.) And I easily dominated!

I founded two cities and started pumping out the elephants (whatever the UU is called.) Conquered the neighboring Persia and some Babylonian cities. In the meantime, I took some happiness boosting beliefs with my religion to offset the UA. Later, when the elephants became outdated, I switched to a more peaceful play style.

Late game, I had 100+ happiness and was pumping Golden Ages like crazy. Massive science production due to high pop, too.

So: what's so bad about the Indians? They are clearly geared towards having a puppet empire and excel at that. Or does it differ on higher difficulties?

I guess that it doesn't fit the early ICS playing style that some players like. I haven't played them myself since forever, but I have played them in G&K and if I remember correctly you have to plan a little, but in the long run, it was a very good civ.

One issue that someone mentioned was that the happiness boost that India will get (eventually) is not so much greater than the average AI joe civ so it was worth playing India (or something like that, if I understood him correctly).
But you cannot think like that. You play India and you will get a certain number of happiness when you have x number of cities with y population and this happiness is more (after the cities has reach a certain point) compared to what you would have gotten if you would have played another civ. Thats the bonus of India UA. How much happiness the AI have is not important in this comparison.

Edit: And regarding the difficulty to get early happiness, well, there are many ways of getting happiness and to have some negative value early on is not so terrible.

 

[nanomage]

...

So: what's so bad about the Indians? They are clearly geared towards having a puppet empire and excel at that. Or does it differ on higher difficulties?

No it doesn't. just don't forget the raze button.

EDIT: you're Gandhi after all.killing neighbours, razing cities and madly throwing nukes around is what you excel at.

 

[Ikael]

UA: +25% growth and faith production in your first non occupied 4 cities

There you go: Incentive to stay small & tall, incentive to get a religion going, great synergies with tradition and piety. Ta-daaa!

 

[stealth_nsk]

UA: +25% growth and faith production in your first non occupied 4 cities

There you go: Incentive to stay small & tall, incentive to get a religion going, great synergies with tradition and piety. Ta-daaa!

It looks a bit too straightforward. In Vanilla India was able to expand quite wide, it just needed more time for this.

Also, I don't think faith would fit here. India was designed as the only science-focused civ in vanilla (except for optional Babylon, of course).

 

[JtW]

And regarding the difficulty to get early happiness, well, there are many ways of getting happiness and to have some negative value early on is not so terrible.

Ditto! I don't get why people obsess so much over early happiness. Lower early city growth means easier religion spread if you get one. It also prevents the unhappiness from going into a downward spiral and actually makes it easier to ICS. I usually plop cities where I like first and worry about happiness later.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Ditto! I don't get why people obsess so much over early happiness. Lower early city growth means easier religion spread if you get one. It also prevents the unhappiness from going into a downward spiral and actually makes it easier to ICS. I usually plop cities where I like first and worry about happiness later.

Because if you play as India:

1. As I said multiple times, it's very hard to get a religion on high difficulty level.

2. India is designed for city growth, so long period of stagnation negates its advantage.

 

[DemonMaster]

Because if you play as India:

1. As I said multiple times, it's very hard to get a religion on high difficulty level.

2. India is designed for city growth, so long period of stagnation negates its advantage.

1. Religion is not the only way to get happiness. When I play (not so much India, but anyway) I usually have a hard time with happiness in the classic era - medieval era shift or something like that and if I don't get a Religion, somebody else have and I have noticed that they usually love to spread it to you. And if all the religion slots are taken before you have then the chance that they are spreading it to you will be high and if not, CSs, luxuries & trade still exist.

2. If I am really in need of a religion and wants to ICS I will try to get the liberty finisher and select Prophet (during the first 50 turns you know of this is going to be a religion race game or not). If I want to do a slow ICS (sound good for India) I will combine Tradition with Liberty or just Tradition (yes you can ICS with Tradition).