Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by jjkrause84, Jul 31, 2013.
Mughal Forts don't provide tourism until you research flight.
This right here makes India alone more playable that along with Global happiness nerfs across the board. For instance, Zoos give only 1 happiness and Ceremonial Burial Founder pantheon is 1 happiness every other city as opposed to every city.
I loved India in vanilla and hated the in G&K because Mercantile city-states along of religion made happiness balancing nearly non-existent.
As such I think their in a good place right now in terms of balance but yeah I would agree that they should have a religion type bias from UB or UU. After all even in the introduction, narrator says birthplace of THREE(!!) religions yet when I play them I can barely found one... lawl.
I know. What I'm saying is that by the time you do have flight, you already have the few, or maybe several, forts built long ago.
Yes, you're right , you can't cover EVERYTHING about any civ, but there are some UAs specially annoying because they highlight an aspect that isn't very characteristic of a civ (Songhai being a landlocked kingdom and their UA giving ability to make better transoceanic invasions; the aztecs having bonus in jungles, even if their empire was located mostly on dry highland; and so on).
In India's case, the UA sounds a little... patronizing . There are a lot of countries with lot of population. And, if we speak about unique gameplay experience, isn't their bonus a penalty as well? I know this has been said thousand of times in these forums, but I think I'm not the only one who finds this civ to be weak and uninspired.
couldnt have said it better. China has more population than India. Also I personally think India should either get a added faith UB say:
UA = Swords to Plowshares?
Mandir (replaces Shrine) = +1 Faith and +1 faith per pasture.
Or a better UU - War Elephants are relevant for only 50 turns or so and their ranged promotions are useless when they are upgraded to knights.
Are you playing at Prince or King level, where nothing is too difficult?
One of the most difficult thing when playing for domination at Immortal/Deity level is to be able to capture cities without stopping due to unhapiness.
With BNW, I realise that very often, AI will build some wonders in their second/third cities.
How to puppet/annex a lot of these cities?
With the phenomenal UA of Indian, you can continue to capture big cities (15pop or a lot more) without serious problem.
So maybe you "wish" a different UA for Indian... but I disagree with the term "mediocre" in your appreciation (at least, in regard of their UA; their UB and UU are effectively mediocre!)
If you want to give India a religious UA, why pick one referencing a religion that isn't widely followed in India?
Also, agreed with nimzo28 wholeheartedly. I'd like to see someone explain what exactly is so bad about India's UA, because to me it's definitely decent.
This really isn't true. Think about the Aztecs, the Iroquois, Mongolia, Spain, Polynesia, Denmark (as representedthe Viking civ), the Celts, the Huns, and most of the BNW civs. Those are all civs that you can define pretty narrowly (respectively: human sacrifice, forests, mounted warfare, exploration, exploration, Viking raids, druids, mounted warfare, etc.) and not upset anybody. Nobody complains about Egypt or England, eitherthose are civs that certainly accomplished all sorts of great things in different fields, but each is represented in a way that shows off their most enduring legacy.
It's true that you could never make an Indian civ (or a Chinese one, or a German one) that satisfied everybody and really demonstrated the full breadth of the civilization's accomplishments, but India in particular is really badly represented. The UA is reductive, racist, and wildly inaccurate to bootIndia is one of the least-urbanized countries in the world.
Well, on one hand, you're right, I play on King and I'm still struggling on Emperor. So surely I haven't experienced the happiness issues you talked about.
On the other hand, when I used the word "mediocre" I referred to the whole civ; the adjectives I used for the UA were "bland" and "uninspired". When we consider a civilization, we must take into account every element. For example, Arabia used to have an UA very simple and not really special (I haven't tried out the new UA; I've read is great), but, at the same time, there were the bazaar (an outstanding UB) and the camel archer (a very decent UU). So, in the end, Arabia was well-rounded.
India, as you say, has two Uniques below average; and, I might add, a not-so-stellar UA. You can still have an useful Ability, which is flavourful at the same time, by making some twists. What about a happiness bonus if more than a religion is present in the cities? Or a faith and growth bonus if settled next to a river?
In the end, most of the Vanilla UAs seem less "personalized" than the ones that appeared on the expansions. Arabia and France (and soon, Germany and Japan) got changes, so I think the idea of an overhauled India isn't that crazy
I'd honestly rather see Egypt's UA reworked a bit to make it either cultural or religious. Something like +1 Tourism for each wonders since the era they've been built would be nice.
1) It's boring: A bit of shuffling around on the value of unhappiness values isn't exactly the most inspiring UA in the game. Hell, even the name is uninspired.
2) It has an inbuilt disadvantage: No matter how insignificant the disadvantage side may be late game, it's still a significant disadvantage early game if you try to expand rapidly, as you yourself have admitted.
3) It's badly designed: We discussed on another thread the developers' intention behind the UA, and I don't think it can get clearer than with this example: http://i.imgur.com/Hm6la2R.png If you take a look at Gandhi's values in relation to Expansion, it is at the value of 3, while his Growth value is at the value of 10. So, I think it's pretty obvious from these stats that the intention behind the UA was to get a small, tall empire. Thus, if the UA ultimately, as you explained to me, actually help the Indians go wide, it goes against the developers' intention and is thus badly designed. Capisc?
4) It's patronising: Many countries around the world have a very high population. Hell, India is beaten by China in total number of heads, and is beaten by the Netherlands in population density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density), but are these countries characterised by this fact in the game? Nope. So why should India? Especially with the long history and cultural and religious diversity of India. Ignoring that material, that could be the source for several interesting, strong UAs, just to instead make a UA based on something that they aren't really even the best in, is just disgraceful.
I can agree with 4, but the rest?
1 is true of so many civs. Take Poland or Greece for example.
2 is true, but the disadvantage is hardly the horror you seem to think it is and only penalizes one type of strategy: tons of very small cities that are cripplingly horrible for every other civ as well. So the point that India's UA penalizes some strategy is very moot - that strategy is ruined anyway.
3, yes, Gandhi's AI goes for a tall empire. That doesn't mean his UA is meant to discourage wide empires now, does it? Nope. Again, if it really was against the developers' intentions, they would've changed it eons ago. Should the UA even discourage the player from playing differently from the particular civilization's AI's way? I don't think so. I'm not sure why you do, as you seem to be very vehement that the UA shouldn't limit the civ in any way.
deleted by poster
I find India to be strong in terms of gameplay, but I definitely agree that it should be more religion-focused.
UA - Get the Buddha at around 600BC - choose 3 divine perks for your civ.
It's quite true. You can find some exceptions, but even most of your cited exceptions are debatable. They just apparently happen to be acceptable to you personally.
Of course, there are fewer people who know that the mongol and viking civilizations had more going on in their empires than just mounted warfare and raids, but it's no diferent than assigning a single trait to a more well-known civilizaiton (like, say, Germany).
Highly agree with steveg700. That said, Civ has been and always will be (IMO) a highly Eurocentric or America-centric game. It's very provincial in that sense, especially with the way history is segmented into Eras that only make sense if you're Western. Given that ethnocentricism, I confess that I expected no better than "durr, durr, Russians be bad commies!" So Civ has been quite a bit better than I expected, but it still is what it is.
The vanilla civs really are a travesty of poor stereotyping, but I do like the effort they've put in for the subsequent civs. I would really like them to revamp all of the vanilla civs more properly.
One thing, the India UA is good, but they could rename it to highlight how these large populations succeed to live together despite their differences from the caste system. It could even be renamed Dharma and also half unhappiness caused from specialists.
Mughal Forts needs to also provide a bonus to building production, since Mughal structuring happened to be a big thing.
I think people are reading a little too much into UAs. Does the American UA imply Americans typically have great eyesight? No, it's just a game mechanic. Specifically, the reason the various civs are given the abilities they have is to separate them from each other. Japan, for example, could have any number of different traits but gets something military simply to round out the number of civs that have a military focus.
The caste system was Hindu/Brahminism, not Buddhism, so the name dharma would not be appropriate if that is what you want to reference.
I think you have a point about the UA though - it doesn't actually help population grow, it helps a large population live happily, which is different and less insulting. Perhaps a naame like "National Unity" would be more appropriate, and would reference the achievemnt of the Civ leader.
The name as it stands is deeply ironic given that Mahatma Gandhi was deeply concerned by the rapid population growth of India and exhorted his followers to use restraint and abstinence to control and limit its growth.
I also don't agree that a figure like Gandhi has been used a their leader. He was never a political leader and refused to stand for political office. He would be more fitting as a great prophet or Great Writer. When I see Gandhi declar war or nuke a city it feels a little disrespectful. He was a moral and spiritual icon of the modern world and is still seen as a saint by many in India.
Another possibility as leader could have been Indira Gandhi. There was a leader who really DID love nukes, and it would have helped with the male/female balance.
Separate names with a comma.