Leaders

[Txurce]

I had an idea while creating the "FreeUnitAtTech" table... what if more leaders have different starting units? This could be a way to buff some of the leaders who fared poorly on the fun leaders poll. Perhaps...

• Babylon - Bowman, Great Scientist @Writing
• Spanish - Warrior and Scout, Caravel @Compass
• Ottomans - Warrior and Trireme
• Korea - Warrior and Worker
• Iroquois - Mohawk Warrior
• Persians - Immortal
• China - Archer

Different starting units are probably the surest way to get a sugar rush in Civ. I'll skip over whether any of these civs needed a buff, since the goal is to make them more appealing. In this sense, they all easily pass the taste test: I'm really looking forward to trying out each one.

I don't think there's a rush issue even with the archers, who are after all no better than an upgraded scout. There might be one with the Mohawk Warrior, if someone choose to focus on that one; my guess is not, and that it's at least worth experimenting with.

I'm also very curious as to how the AI will fare with these. In the case of the archer/bowmen, since they already have that bonus, do Babylon and China get an extra one? If so, I'll be curious to see if China in particular becomes more aggressive at the outset.

 

[Thalassicus]

@black213
If rushing AIs is too easy, we can give AIs an extra unit. The important thing is to make these leaders more exciting.

 

[bwoww78]

I think it's a great way to "personalize" each civ some, a good idea.

Not completely sure. Might make early rushing too easy.

Barbarians have been boosted in VEM, that could negate that some or be scaled differently as a result...

 

[albie_123]

Two simple suggestions:

Firstly, is it possible for India to get the worker in the same manner as Korea? (Maybe replacing the warrior.) I've found India to be a little boring, and it didn't score too well in the poll. Their population-centred UA and UB lends itself to peaceful play and farm spamming.

Secondly, with all these Civs getting free units, it might be a good idea to add a 'Starting Units:' line under each leader's UA description. It allows newer players to compare civs easier, would condense the descriptions by getting rid of the redundant 'Starts with a free -', and would look pretty polished. Obviously not a pressing issue, mind you.

 

[Thalassicus]

One complication about a "Starting Units" line is advanced starts. I still need to adapt this stuff to that situation...

I like playing India. There's a difference between the historical Gandhi and the actual gameplay effects, however. The achievement to get a cultural victory with 3 cities with Gandhi is very deceptive, because India is much better with a wide empire and conquest victories, even in vanilla.

• Trait: more useful for conquest games than peaceful ones. Conquest games typically struggle against low happiness, while peaceful games have excess happiness.
• UU: chariot archers (and by extension war elephants) are mainly used by conquerors. In peaceful games I usually rely on militaristic citystates for my army.
• UB: I feel the Sanitation System makes farms less necessary, since we can build villages and still get +1 along rivers.

Gandhi is very hawkish. I've struggled to find a way to make him more of a historically-accurate dove. Your idea to replace the initial warrior with a worker is a great way to accomplish this. The warrior-scout-scout trio is very important for early warmongers to crush barbarians with the Honor policy. Without that warrior, the value of an Honor opener is greatly reduced.

 

[albie_123]

Something tells me that free units will never be quite adapted to advanced starts.

Either way, I very rarely play India (Since it's always seemed kind of boring to me) so it's not surprising I wasn't aware of his warmongering capabilities.

 

[Thalassicus]

I think it will be a straightforward algorithm: check the era when the game starts, and add units appropriate to that era. It will just require a lot of time and tedious data entry.

 

[Babri]

Actually it would be fun if they used a Mughal Emperor for India such as Aurangzeb rather than boring Gandhi. That would make India look like more warring civ & thus more interesting in respect to ciV gameplay mechanics.

 

[Thalassicus]

I liked Asoka from Civ 4. He was a conqueror, but also very spiritual, so he fit both styles of gameplay.

 

[pthmix]

...

Gandhi is very hawkish. I've struggled to find a way to make him more of a historically-accurate dove. Your idea to replace the initial warrior with a worker is a great way to accomplish this. The warrior-scout-scout trio is very important for early warmongers to crush barbarians with the Honor policy. Without that warrior, the value of an Honor opener is greatly reduced.

Would you want to focus them more on a tall-empire approach (aside from the worker)?

(Edit: Grr, almost forget it again: Thank you for this mod!)

 

[Babri]

I liked Asoka from Civ 4. He was a conqueror, but also very spiritual, so he fit both styles of gameplay.

Yeah although I would still prefer one of my Mughal ancestors to be the leader of India in nxt civ.
About Iroqious won't it be sensible to upgrade their starting warrior to mohawk through an 'event' for free when they research iron working instead of giving them OP mohawk warrior which can slice the early barbarians with ease. (or simply give them a free mohawk when iron working is researched).

 

[albie_123]

I would like to strongly suggest once again to include a 'starting units' line. It is very confusing and misleading to have a leader with 'Starts with a worker' in their description and then find yourself without a warrior as well. Besides, a starting unit line would not be any less suited to advanced starts than the current descriptions.

Also, I've noticed that the amount of Golden Age Points given by the Immortal (4, I think?) is fairly inconsequential on Epic.

 

[Babri]

Also, I've noticed that the amount of Golden Age Points given by the Immortal (4, I think?) is fairly inconsequential on Epic.

You have made a good point. All boosts of gold, culture & GA points should be scaled to the speed I think. What about scaling Aztec UA according to speed as well.

 

[Txurce]

I don't think VEM can be scaled to different speeds.

 

[mitsho]

One does fight more in epic as well, shouldn't that scale the Golden Age Points as well?

Having played one game with 131.23, I am underwhelmed with Suleiman's ability. (I didn't play Suleiman). Of course you can amass a lot of sea barbarians easily, but it is much weaker than Bismarck's ability. It's just so sea focused. And I'm not sure the UUs make that up in comparison with the Germans or the English (who also have a sea focused UA). It's difficult of course to think of a way of beefing that up in line with the name of the UA (Corsairs) without making it too powerful on sea maps. I'm not really sure what to do, I just don't feel like wanting to play them...

 

[albie_123]

I made a suggestion for Suleiman's ability in the 'Navies' thread, in regard to the incoming Navy changes:

'In keeping with the Corsair theme, is it possible to make Suleiman's trait apply to not only barbarians, but ALL enemy ships (Perhaps before the discovery of Steam Power), but only when attacked by melee boats?'

That would buff it, keep it Naval-based, and not be too strong.

And unfortunately, you don't fight in Epic as much as you should, in my opinion. Regardless, I just happened to find it underwhelming when I played, and I haven't tried it on Normal speed, so I can't really say it was worse than something I haven't tried.

 

[Babri]

I don't think VEM can be scaled to different speeds.

If gold from pillaging camps is scaled with speed then why not the culture & gold u get from killing as well.

 

[black213]

I made a suggestion for Suleiman's ability in the 'Navies' thread, in regard to the incoming Navy changes:

'In keeping with the Corsair theme, is it possible to make Suleiman's trait apply to not only barbarians, but ALL enemy ships (Perhaps before the discovery of Steam Power), but only when attacked by melee boats?'

That would buff it, keep it Naval-based, and not be too strong.

And unfortunately, you don't fight in Epic as much as you should, in my opinion. Regardless, I just happened to find it underwhelming when I played, and I haven't tried it on Normal speed, so I can't really say it was worse than something I haven't tried.

I think that's a good idea. I don't like the concept of having two civs focusing on barbarians.

 

[Txurce]

Having played one game with 131.23, I am underwhelmed with Suleiman's ability. (I didn't play Suleiman). Of course you can amass a lot of sea barbarians easily, but it is much weaker than Bismarck's ability. It's just so sea focused. And I'm not sure the UUs make that up in comparison with the Germans or the English (who also have a sea focused UA).

There's no reason why the Ottomans have to be as strong as Germany - was Denmark as strong? - as long as they are competitive. I think their UU's majorly outclass Germany's and bring them up to a close enough par. More to the point, I think at least a few games should be played with the Ottomans before they are dismissed as too weak for the human player. (Like the Mongols, they aren't one of the stronger AI civs.) Given VEM's emphasis on naval power, a large, well-promoted navy could be brutal on coastal cities.

I made a suggestion for Suleiman's ability in the 'Navies' thread, in regard to the incoming Navy changes:

'In keeping with the Corsair theme, is it possible to make Suleiman's trait apply to not only barbarians, but ALL enemy ships (Perhaps before the discovery of Steam Power), but only when attacked by melee boats?'

That would buff it, keep it Naval-based, and not be too strong.

I like this idea, but am not sure one way or the other whether it's necessary yet.

 

[Babri]

I made a suggestion for Suleiman's ability in the 'Navies' thread, in regard to the incoming Navy changes:

'In keeping with the Corsair theme, is it possible to make Suleiman's trait apply to not only barbarians, but ALL enemy ships (Perhaps before the discovery of Steam Power), but only when attacked by melee boats?'

That would buff it, keep it Naval-based, and not be too strong.

And unfortunately, you don't fight in Epic as much as you should, in my opinion. Regardless, I just happened to find it underwhelming when I played, and I haven't tried it on Normal speed, so I can't really say it was worse than something I haven't tried.

My suggestion for Otto UA :-
Barbary Cosairs : Defeated ships are captured & gold looted when ships are defeated.
What do u think about it ?