Leaders

[Ahriman]

I would say that a poll of "which are the most fun factions" is not a good way to find which factions people think are the least fun. Just because certain civs don't make anyone's top 5 doesn't mean that people think they're weak.
The DLC civs also obviously get fewer votes because not everyone has them.
However, I agree that most of these civs are slightly dull.

Some suggestions:
How about adding a +1 engineer GPP income to the Steam Mill, so that English cities produce more great engineers (for creating manufacturies)?
Arabia might be more interesting if they had some desert focus. Perhaps a strength bonus on desert terrain for all their mounted units.
Babylon; is there any way to tweak the bowman so that some of its benefits come from promotions, that stay even as the bowman is upgraded? I think the fact that Babylonian crossbows are no better than other factions is a big problem here.
Walls of Babylon might just need a stat boost.
A second free great scientist upon scientific theory might boost Bablyon's UA.
I strongly disagree that they're a top-tier civ anymore, given the huge nerfs to great scientists.

Germany, I think upping the capture % chance would help. You could also consider having brutes have zero maintenance cost, so that captured brutes couldn't slow your economy.

Mongols seem ok; doesn't the combat bonus also apply to city attack anyway? Haven't played them.
Potentially you could also give them larger bonuses from city state capture.

With Rome, I'd just increase the % modifier. 20% is ok in vanilla when buildings are weak, but you've buffed the yield changes from everything else. I'd consider moving it up to at least 30%. That'd make a noticeable difference.
Also, is there any way to make later Roman infantry retain the ability to build roads/railroads/forts, if they were upgraded from a Legion? That would be nice. I'd also consider giving legions a mild city attack bonus. They're very mediocore for one of the most iconic military units of all time.

Songhai, I have no particular thoughts. I agree they feel boring.

Never played Spain, but the whole core ability is something I strongly dislike (but others might like).
A conquistador buff (maybe they get ability to move through rough terrain at normal cost?) would be nice though.
Possibly have them start the game with a free scout instead of warrior?
Tweaking the ability so that it still gives some extra bonus for every new wonder, even if you're not first, might help too, to encourage them to keep being an explorer, even after the early game.

 

[Sneaks]

I'd agree that aside from Germany, England, and America, I would probably not touch any of these civs. The rest all have distinct styles and flavors, and all of them are either mid to high powers.

Songhai, especially. It is easily one of my favorite civs to play, simply because it acts as this really unique balance of cultural warmonger (fits in with Songhai the civilization, even if not Askia). The Mud Pyramid is awesome, and due to the 0 maintenance, always worth building.

 

[Thalassicus]

I play my favorite civs the most, so I have more experience with them than the others. I'd guess it's this way for most people. Because of this it's easy to say "I like leader X because of Y" due to experience playing the leader in lots of games, while it's more difficult to say with certainty that "X leader isn't fun because of Y" if we have very little experience with the leader. I did the poll as 'most fun' because those are the leaders we're familiar with.

It's also more helpful to identify the most fun leaders because I can look at those, figure out what's great about them, and use it as a guide for the others.

There's honestly no good way to hold a vote though. Some countries/states pick a single favorite, others have voters rank candidates by order of preference and use complicated formulas to determine a winner... some places have runoffs, others don't. It's something I read about a few years back in Scientific American that basically came to the conclusion there's no ideal solution.

=================

A distinction I want to make is the difference between a fun leader and a powerful leader. Compare these two effects:

• +30% combat bonus vs citystate units and cities
• +50% reward from capturing citystates

I think most people feel combat is already rather easy. I've seen several opinions stating combat bonuses like this can reduce fun in the game since it makes combat even easier. By shifting away from in-combat bonuses and emphasizing victory rewards:

• Increases the challenge of fighting a citystate
• Balances it with a better reward

Another example is how bonuses against barbarians that can get to 35% with Honor. I think most people can agree that big of a bonus trivializes barbarians (especially since they don't heal), which is why I've been searching for a better replacement for months. I have a similar reasoning with Babylon. I didn't find Neb's trait very fun at Civ's release because it took an already easy/overpowered strategy (spamming scientist free techs) and made it even easier. I actually avoided playing Neb after a few games because it felt like cheating. That's changed a lot with the nerfs to scientists, but it was the same concept.

Basically, making combat more challenging will probably make Civ more fun.

This is why I would like to avoid increasing unit strength when trying to make someone more fun. The only situation where this exists in the current mod is the buffed strength for Camel Archers, a leftover from when I buffed strength for all ranged units. I've been thinking about removing this in favor of some more interesting effect.

I like the idea of a desert bonus of some sort for Arabia. One idea could be a gold bonus on or near Oases, like how the Aztecs get a food boost from Lakes. The Oasis is a 'feature' like forests and jungle so it's very easy to link stuff to it.

Just to emphasize again, this time I'm focusing on making leaders more enjoyable to play even at the same power level. I think they're all decently balanced (with the possible exception of Germany) so most of this is not about buffing or nerfing leaders. Fine-tuning their power level would probably be counterproductive since Firaxis plans to change them in the months ahead.

 

[Txurce]

By shifting away from combat bonuses and emphasizing victory rewards:

• Increases the challenge of fighting a citystate
• Balances it with a better reward

I would like to avoid increasing unit strength to improve the fun factor of a leader. The only situation where this exists in the current mod is the buffed strength for Camel Archers, a leftover from when I buffed strength for all ranged units. I've been thinking about removing this in favor of some more interesting effect.

The Mongol example a good way of explaining how to make the game more fun. I still don't think it's necessary, but it is a clever way to push them a little farther down the road in their already distinct direction.

The Camel Archer is still pretty wimpy, even with its buff. Putting it back where it was and giving Arabia more of a distinct kick elsewhere would improve them... although, like Sneaks, I don't think they are in need of help the way America, England and Germany are. I have only played Germany once, and only played A and E when testing your UU and UB changes.

 

[Ahriman]

There's honestly no good way to hold a vote

If you're trying to figure out which civs are the least fun, so that you can improve them, then you should ask people to vote for the 5 civs they think are least fun.
That'd get better information than trying to deduce this from the ones that people don't think are the most fun.

I think most people feel combat is already rather easy. I've seen several opinions stating combat bonuses like this can reduce fun in the game since it makes combat even easier. By shifting away from in-combat bonuses and emphasizing victory rewards:

This is logical, and I support the idea of higher victory rewards for mongols.
However, I think while units are easy to kill, cities aren't easy to take (especially well-fortified capitals like city states often are).
So I'd consider moving from combat bonus vs units and cities to bonus vs cities and reward from capturing cities.

Another example is how bonuses against barbarians that can get to 35% with Honor. I think most people can agree that big of a bonus trivializes barbarians (especially since they don't heal), which is why I've been searching for a better replacement for months.

I agree with this one.

. I didn't find Neb's trait very fun at Civ's release because it took an already easy/overpowered strategy (spamming scientist free techs) and made it even easier. I actually avoided playing Neb after a few games because it felt like cheating. That's changed a lot with the nerfs to scientists, but it's the same concept.

I don't think it is the same concept anymore now that great scientists aren't overpowered.
I think working with free scientist strategy is fine.

I like the idea of a desert bonus of some sort for Arabia. One idea could be a gold bonus on or near Oases, like how the Aztecs get a food boost from Lakes. The Oasis is a 'feature' like forests and jungle so it's very easy to link stuff to it.

Maybe, but that seems very specialized. How often is there a good city site near an oasis? Unless it makes desert as good as grasslands or plains, you're still never going to work it, and you're not going to try to build a city near it.

Fine-tuning their power level would probably be counterproductive since Firaxis plans to change them in the months ahead.

Eh. I think we're better at balancing that Firaxis is.

 

[Txurce]

How often is there a good city site near an oasis? Unless it makes desert as good as grasslands or plains, you're still never going to work it, and you're not going to try to build a city near it.

Arabia often finds itself in a region where it builds near oases. I always have at least one city that does so. If there's a limitation, it's that there may not be enough of them.

 

[Thalassicus]

Eh. I think we're better at balancing that Firaxis is.

While possibly true, I like to stay close to vanilla, so I'll be adjusting the mod whenever they make changes to leaders in the future.

 

[Ahriman]

Arabia often finds itself in a region where it builds near oases. I always have at least one city that does so. If there's a limitation, it's that there may not be enough of them.

One city getting a small benefit is still very narrow for a UA effect.

 

[Txurce]

One city getting a small benefit is still very narrow for a UA effect.

Yes, that's what my last sentence said.

 

[Ahriman]

Yes, that's what my last sentence said.

Right, which I think would mean that its not a good candidate for an ability.

[As opposed to changing the number of oases.]

 

[Txurce]

Right, which I think would mean that its not a good candidate for an ability.

[As opposed to changing the number of oases.]

Also note that my original point was to point out that Arabia often has city sites near oases, but that the limitation is how many there are. There really wasn't much there for you to contest. But since you have, yes, the paucity of oases is one argument against it. The size of the buff would determine it. Note that Thal said a bonus on or near oases. If it's a multiple, it might do the trick.

 

[Ahriman]

I think a large bonus that applied to oases would be too hit or miss. Some games, where you happened to have several oases nearby, it would be very strong. Other games, it would be very weak.

I think its fine for Iroquois to have a bonus for forests, since forest is common. I think its fine for Inca to have a bonus on hills, because hills are common. I do not think it is a good idea to give Arabia a bonus tied to oases, because Oases are *not* common, and because the number of them around and near the player is highly random depending on the particular mapscript and map that was generated.

This isn't something that you can control by tweaking how large the bonus-per-oasis is.

You're suggesting that a UA bonus based around oases is potentially a good idea. I'm suggesting its not. I don't think its unreasonable for me to have a different perspective from you here.

 

[Seek]

Why not give Arabia extra gold from fresh water Villages? (Could call them Trading Posts too!)

 

[Ahriman]

Why not give Arabia extra gold from fresh water Villages? (Could call them Trading Posts too!)

I think that would probably be too powerful. Other than Egypt, which is just a small part of Arabian history, it also doesn't feel very thematic to me.

 

[Joneill]

I think its fine for Iroquois to have a bonus for forests, since forest is common. I think its fine for Inca to have a bonus on hills, because hills are common. I do not think it is a good idea to give Arabia a bonus tied to oases, because Oases are *not* common, and because the number of them around and near the player is highly random depending on the particular mapscript and map that was generated.

An oasis bonus could be used as flavor on the bazaar, similar to the lake-foodbonus on the floating gardens. Lakes aren't all that common either, after all, but it's also not the defining bonus of the aztec or the building itself.

 

[Thalassicus]

One idea could be a gold bonus on or near Oases, like how the Aztecs get a food boost from Lakes.

One city getting a small benefit is still very narrow for a UA effect.

Right, which I think would mean that its not a good candidate for an ability.

You're suggesting that a UA bonus based around oases is potentially a good idea. I'm suggesting its not. I don't think its unreasonable for me to have a different perspective from you here.

Just misinterpreted what I said a bit... if I removed the original effects it wouldn't be like the Aztec lake bonus, and I would have used the words 'remove' or 'replace'.

As Joneill pointed out it's an oasis bonus on the Bazaar like the lake bonus on the Chinampa. I've got it set up so the Bazaar gives +4 on oasis tiles in addition to the other effects. One effect I'd really like to do but isn't possible, is something like double worker improvement speed on deserts. That'd be sort of cool. Another option is I could make Arabian workers move faster across desert... that possibility is available.

 

[Txurce]

One effect I'd really like to do but isn't possible, is something like double worker improvement speed on deserts. That'd be sort of cool. Another option is I could make Arabian workers move faster across desert... that possibility is available.

I'm on board with the oasis, as you know. But I've been thinking about realism a bit, in terms of possibilities like workers moving faster in the desert. Why would they? It's not the same thing as someone moving as fast through rough terrain. On the other hand, if all other units moved at half-speed in the desert...

 

[Thalassicus]

It's basically just the concept of the worker being more adept at traveling through desert regions; Civ is often abstract.

 

[Txurce]

It's basically just the concept of the worker being more adept at traveling through desert regions; Civ is often abstract.

Yeah, I know... is it possible to make the desert difficult for everyone except the Arabs?

 

[Thalassicus]

The disadvantage I see of doing so is deserts are already very weak regions, and nerfing them for everyone but Haruun would make deserts absolutely horrible.

This option would basically make them somewhat worthwhile for Arabia. Deserts inherently have a slower improvement speed than grassland/plains... and though I can't alter that improvement speed directly with a promotion or unit, I can alter the movement speed. It's the same "end result" (desert tiles get developed faster).