Leaders

Discussion in 'Communitas Expansion Pack' started by Thalassicus, Oct 1, 2010.

  1. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    Something to consider is courts are available earlier than before, and earlier things are more powerful. I don't believe I've reduced Immortal healing capability - if they are not relieving 200% heal rate it's a bug.

    I generally try to avoid in-combat bonuses because I feel combat in Civ 5 is too easy. :)

    I've posted regarding the Satrap's Court thing in the bug report thread: here.
     
  2. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    Other civs have an in-combat bonus, but I don't feel strongly about this out of context. What I did notice from my GotVEM game (and that of just about all the other posters) is that the Court seems to make a perpetual GA too easy to achieve. So I thought that aspect of the Persian traits should be toned down - thereby probably calling for a buff somewhere else. If not the combat bonus, the how about more gold from the Court?
     
  3. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,266
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I think there is a risk of making the faction almost entirely about a single building. I would prefer to shift more power to the UA, rather than just the UB.
    No other faction's power is so concentrated in a single UB.
     
  4. apocalypse105

    apocalypse105 Deity

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Arabia?


    BUt i do agree I thinx they should make the ability golden ages lost longer.. Not the combat bonus or movement

    Then its balanced out
     
  5. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,266
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Arabia's UA (extra gold in every city and desert movement) and UU (high ranged attack + move-after-attack = pwnage) are both pretty significant, and their UB is good but not amazing unless you also have the Commerce finisher.
     
  6. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    It comes down to slightly reducing the ease of getting a perpetual GA. The balance could result in giving the Court a gold function (as it originally had) but not if it's also going to have a 200-point GA trigger. But I'm fine with toning down the Court and making the UA more powerful.
     
  7. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,266
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I would rather dramatically cut back the mechanics that make near-permanent GA possible and increase the bonuses while in GA. I think that is more flavorful to have more powerful GA than to have lots of GA.

    One possibility; keep the GA points per turn, but cut the GA points on constructing a new Court down to 50 or 100, but have the UA give extra gold or production or military strength whilst in GA.
     
  8. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    That would work for me as well.
     
  9. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,266
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Another reason to do this: the fact that the Court comes early isn't very exciting when much of its benefit comes from a one-shot effect on creation. I think the court is more interesting if its benefits are mostly a per-turn benefit, so that you can get them faster.

    Another thought: given that we now have the golden age point mechanic, might a large GA-point income and one-shot bonus be a interesting effect for a wonder, particularly one of the ones with fairly generic effects?
     
  10. Zaldron

    Zaldron King

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    822
    I think I also agree with shorter more powerful GAs. I was just playing a game where I had the freedom policy and I pulled out a 40+ turn GA fairly late in the game (turn ~300, ~1800AD).

    That actually sounds like an interesting mechanic for a wonder but I can't think offhand which wonder to put it on.
     
  11. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    After some questions recently about certain civs growing a little too fast, I tried Siam on King level. Picking up Angkor Wat along with the Patronage policies put them in a huge upward spiral in terms of population and even more in terms of happiness. My levels stayed between 40 and 65 for most of the game, with next to no effort to raise Friendships to Alliances.
     
  12. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    Something to remember is the bug where I left the +50% duration modifier in for Persia. This made it easier to stay in a perpetual GA than was intended. :)

    What wonder could a GA bonus go on?
     
  13. Seek

    Seek Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,410
    The Taj Mahal seems best to me - I've always found it a pretty boring wonder with little staying power.
     
  14. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,266
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Agreed, that would be a good fit.
     
  15. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    If I read this correctly, you corrected a bug that buffed Persia's GA ability. Would the v121 nerf be needed as well then?
     
  16. Thalassicus

    Thalassicus Bytes and Nibblers

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,057
    Location:
    Texas
    It's hard to say for sure, but I feel it will help. I did pick only a modest reduction.
     
  17. Hubay

    Hubay Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    I just finished a domination victory with germany on king, on a map with a lot of small islands between 3 big continents (I used perfectworld VEM). In general I've noticed there tend to be a lot of encampments on the small islands on that sort of map, because no one bothers to fogbust them and it's usually not worth embarking the melee units to pillage the encampments.

    So there was a pretty steady stream of slavers, pirates, and eventually privateers coming into my territory to be farmed. I was able to build a navy very, very quickly, to the point that no one else stood a chance of defeating my on the sea. I also had an edge when i wanted to take cities, because privateers come with seige instead of recon 1. It felt pretty unfair, honestly, because I was able to wittle down Askia's massive land army without really bothering to field more than 3-4 land units at a time.

    Part of this because is AI isn't as good on sea maps, I know, and part of it was probably because I was playing on King. But I feel like Germany would always be OP on this sort of map, because their navy can grow very quickly without trying very hard.

    I think captured barb units shouldn't have the option to attack the same turn you get them. This made it a cakewalk to sink 2-3 barb ships at a time when it would otherwise take several turns. I get that they need to move, so you don't have a stacked unit, but otherwise I think they should be unable to fight til the next round.
     
  18. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    I've had a similar experience, and agree that it's OP. My preference would be for Germany to lose the naval aspect of their UA. This still leaves them as one of the strongest human civs, and is also much more historically accurate.

    I would then consider giving the Ottomans the VEM version of their vanilla UA: capturing barb vessels. As you've noticed, it is a lot of fun to build up a huge navy. And it's very fitting for the Ottomans, who had a huge galley fleet. I'd rather have that than the Governance UA, although that one is interesting.
     
  19. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,181
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    I thought there was a pretty big consensus that Germany should lose the Naval Side of its UA, it is much too strong otherwise. I wouldn't return the Ottoman Ability though because a) it seems like a weak UA then and it is confined to Naval Maps! and b) it reduces the Ottomans to a only-military civ, which doesn't really make them special, much less so than the current UA.
     
  20. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    While I wouldn't argue strongly for restoring the original Ottomans UA, there's nothing wrong with them being strictly military, any more than there is with Germany. More people enjoy warmongering than not. I feel more strongly in saying that there is nothing weak about the Barbary Corsairs UA, VEM style. It's easy to amass a large barbarian fleet on just about any map. Combine that with the original Janissary and Sepahi UU's, and you have a devastating military that is as unique as that of Germany or the Mongols.

    That said, it would be nice to keep the Governance specialist-bonus UA in the game. One option would be to give it to England, which is not nearly a top-tier UA. Britain historically had enough GP to justify this. Another alternative is to give it to Spain, instead of its unpopular GW-based UA. During Spain's long Golden Age, it did a surprisingly good job of governing its European and New World holdings.

    All of this, obviously, is food for thought.
     

Share This Page