Let's start a G&K thread for UP/VE

[Txurce]

I hear you. I cited the Huns because apparently the battering ram is absolutely brutal, and available with BW. Austria's UA is opaque to me, partly because I don't know what the actual costs are. (You said 500g after allying; I thought someone else might have said 1500g). But if we lay aside the "it kills the CS system" argument for the moment, I'll be curious to see what you get out of all your marriages - in other words, how easy it makes your victory condition. That would be the bottom line, right?

Please keep me posted, as I'm really curious.

 

[Seek]

In my game, I had a larger empire than I would have had just going Lib and REXing, to put it in perpective.

The cost is 500 on standard, 1500 must be for marathon.

Starting a game with the Huns now, the battering ram seems situationally brutal since it has basically no defense (I'm not sure how much use I'll get out of it in this game because there's a tremendous amount of rough terrain around my capital and my closest neighbor).

 

[Txurce]

500 does seem low. I had assumed the amount would be much higher.

 

[rfxmills]

I'll be the first to say it: Austria's UA should be limited somehow in GEM (rising costs, close borders, ends at Industrial, etc). Otherwise nothing too glaring in terms of balance, surprisingly, and fewer bugs than I would ever have imagined considering the state of vanilla at release. Very polished!

I'm surprised by the standard of the expansion as well, I was expecting the new mechanics, but not the little bits of balancing here and there. Superficially it has fixed most of the problems I had with the game, in particular RAs being linked to the science you and your ally produce!!

I think there might be a few VEM elements which are redundant for GEM.

And rising costs for Austria seems like a good idea.

I don't mind it (Lancers are much more useful in both G&K and VEM), but I do think Pikes are too strong compared to Swords.

I thought that too, but as someone else pointed out Pikes are a medieval unit and Swords are classical. Longswordsman are stronger than Pikes and now upgrade to Muskets which are even stronger.

In the expansion Firaxis added marines as part of the Army. They're really their own independent group, but since we have to choose between army or navy I think marines fit more realistically as part of the navy. That's why I want to change them from army to navy.

I'm not sure I agree with this, Marines are a type of solider more than a type of ship. They are an independent group, but so are Paratroopers and they are represented as land units instead of air units.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Haven't had the chance to play....yet, but from what I'm reading the major changes I'd recommend are

1) add Synagogues to the list of Follower Beliefs.

2) Turn copper & citrus into *bonus* resources.

3) add a couple of new Unique Luxuries for Mercantil Civs-maybe chocolate & tea/coffee.

 

[Tarquelne]

500 does seem low. I had assumed the amount would be much higher.

Yeah - For much of the game that's not much more than a good unit.

I'd assumed it'd be harder to get to Ally status with the new "quest based" system in G&K. But I suspect it's simply magnified the power of Austria's UA: While it may be difficult to reach and maintain Ally status with a chosen CS using quests it doesn't seem that hard to fall into Ally status with a CS from, while pursuing your own activities, happening to complete+ a couple of quests. Do that as Austria and, if you've got some spare cash, you've got a new city.

I like the basic idea behind the UA, and I've decided I like spending gold as a basic way to influence CSs. But if you don't get the amounts right it's either too cheap and thus not fun, or prohibitively expensive and not used... and thus not fun.

Playing my first G&K game: Wondering if the Mosque of Djenne isn't over-powered. (Missionaries can be used 3 times.) But I'm playing as Byzantium, took two beliefs with yields based on number of followers, emphasized Faith, and might be in the lead without the Mosque. Maybe I'm just reaping the rewards of some good choices. (And a nice starting position, even if it was near the Ottomans.)

 

[Ahriman]

I don't mind it (Lancers are much more useful in both G&K and VEM),

But I still think it is weird, and annoying that a mostly infantry army upgrades into something that requires horses. What if you are one of the civs that have a UU spearman or pikeman, and you want to build a big army of those? Now you have forced obsolesence if you don't have horses, or don't want a mostly cav army midgame.

but I do think Pikes are too strong compared to Swords.

I don't think this will be such a problem in VEM, if we retain pikemen on the combat lines with militia on civil service, because the pikemen are significantly higher tech *and* on a military line. I also like the VEM design of a city attack role for swordsmen and a defensive role for spears and pikes. I don't see any reason to lose that in the update.

Also, I'll be the first to say it: Austria's UA should be limited somehow in GEM

I don't have any experience with Austria yet. I think it will mostly be a problem only if happiness isn't binding enough so that it is easy to expand en masse (and I'm finding this; religion gives extra happiness opportunities but there are no downsides), and if there are no diplomatic consequences (eg it should piss off everyone who was friends with that CS). Otherwise its probably ok. Remember that the decision in vanilla was that it wasn't worth conquering CSes, it was better to befriend or ignore them, so VEM added extra bonuses for conquest, which presumably won't be triggered by the Austrian UA.
And remember that puppets are weaker in VEM than in vanilla.

But I haven't played them yet, so I haven't seen how abusive they could be for early game expansion, which I guess is the main worry. But if that early game expansion adds unhappiness without giving much in the way of income, culture or science, then is it such a big deal? Especially with a 500 gold cost?

Huns seem really nasty for early game onslaught in the hands of the human, but I think that is by design. I think with higher unhappiness per city in VEM that early conquest is probably less valuable.

1) add Synagogues to the list of Follower Beliefs.

How would these be different from the existing buildings?

2) Turn copper & citrus into *bonus* resources.

Why?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@ Ahriman. Adding Synagogues is more about added Flavor than anything else. Judaism is in the game, so why not Synagogues (as you have Mosques, Cathedrals & Pagodas). Synagogues should differ from the other faith-based buildings in some way, though, to make them worthwhile.

As for Citrus & Copper being Bonus resources rather than luxuries. Well first of all because I don't consider either to be truly *luxuries* the same way existing luxuries (like dyes, spices or marble, for example) are, but also because I'm hearing that happiness is now *way* too easy to come by, so maybe cutting down on the number of new luxuries will help balance happiness a bit!

Aussie.

 

[Txurce]

@ Ahriman. Adding Synagogues is more about added Flavor than anything else. Judaism is in the game, so why not Synagogues (as you have Mosques, Cathedrals & Pagodas). Synagogues should differ from the other faith-based buildings in some way, though, to make them worthwhile.

Shintoism is also in the game. There are two to three times as many of its followers as there are Jews today. Why aren't there Shinto Temples? I could really go to town with Buddhism and Hinduism... you get the idea. That would be a lot of buildings before you got down to the smallest religions represented.

 

[mitsho]

@Synagogues Other Religions don't have their buildings in the game as well, so I don't see the need for another one. It would have to have a unique effect, which one would that be? There's enough beliefs for the moment, so... no. Mosques, Cathedrals and Pagodas could however be added as free buildings to a few more wonders...

@Citrus/Copper as bonus ressources. IF you want to add more luxury ressources for mercantile city states (which do only have two right now. it seems to be a bit low...), THEN it would be better to change those. After all, there seem to be more than enough luxuries around now and with Religion there is also enough happiness around (presumably). What about the idea of making copper the equivalent to Marble (bonus production for units instead of wonders)?

@Austria, what bugs the most is probably the effect on Diplomatic Victories. After all, Austria makes the city state vanish, whereas with Mongolia, you can liberate them. Fixing this would probably help a lot.

@Spies and Tech Stealing. Tech Stealing seems to powerful, and there seems less one can do against it. The only thing (change ones spies throgh every city) seems to be very micro-management intensive. So either lessen the strength of it, or...

Add more options for spies. They do seem to have not enough to do. I could imagine the options like "explore enemy empire" (reveals the map/new improvements), sabotage Wonder/Nuke/Space Ship Production, sabotage Culture/Science (to combat those victories), maybe incite war (city state attacks...). I'm not sure if those exist already (and probably are not moddable)...

The other thing to look at with Espionage is the balance between Tall and Wide empires. at the moment, it seems to favour Wide (tech stealing), not? You get the spies without effort and the rest is a Random Number Generator... If there's a way to make that system better for tall empires, I do think this would be good for gameplay...

 

[gunnergoz]

Re: Marines as ships - I'm assuming that the AI has been found to use melee ships more effectively to assault coastal cities, as opposed to disembarking regular land units to do the same thing. If we are stuck with that sort of AI, then capitalize upon it and recognize the melee/amphibious assault ship for what it is - a naval strike force with embarked marines, intended to capture high-value coastal targets (cities.) I suggest we us the term "amphibious cruiser" for such a force. Not sure that there is an icon or animations for it, but it would be a melee ship with one main strength, that being melee/amphib assault of cities. Cruisers are not represented in any way now and they should be. Destroyers would be a separate type of escort/AA/antisub ship.

 

[Ahriman]

@ Ahriman. Adding Synagogues is more about added Flavor than anything else. Judaism is in the game, so why not Synagogues (as you have Mosques, Cathedrals & Pagodas). Synagogues should differ from the other faith-based buildings in some way, though, to make them worthwhile.

I think this is a bad way to approach design. There are already only modest differences between Mosques, Cathedrals and Pagodas. Unless there is a design reason to add a new effect, I wouldn't do so. It has a nontrivial effect too; it increases the number of different religions that can all pick a religion effect.

ell first of all because I don't consider either to be truly *luxuries* the same way existing luxuries (like dyes, spices or marble, for example) are, but also because I'm hearing that happiness is now *way* too easy to come by, so maybe cutting down on the number of new luxuries will help balance happiness a bit!

I don't think there is too much happiness from luxuries - and recall that VEM already drops the happiness per luxury. I also don't think that having more luxuries affects the mapscript distribution; there are the same density of luxuries as before.

Why aren't there Shinto Temples? I could really go to town with Buddhism and Hinduism... you get the idea.

This too.

@Spies and Tech Stealing. Tech Stealing seems to powerful,

One possibility (though probably not possible with existing code) is that you should be able to have defensive spies work everywhere, rather than needing to station them in a particular city. So if you're the tech leader and put all your spies on defense, then it will be very hard for anyone to steal from you.
In contrast, the police station buildings seem really weak. I think it is a design fail to have a building that just makes it slightly harder for people to spy on you in one particular city.

but it would be a melee ship with one main strength, that being melee/amphib assault of cities

I think this is too narrow a role for a single unit. In the modern era, I would just stuck with subs as an anti-naval specialist.
Remember also that the marines Thal is talking about are 18th century age-of-sail marines.

Cruisers are not represented in any way now and they should be.

WW2-type Cruisers have always just felt like a weak battleship in Civ. I don't really see much distinctive value in adding them (separately from a modern missile cruiser which replaces battleships).

*edit*
The other issue taking up a lot of space is with longbows upgrading into high range gatling guns and machine guns, and similarly for CKN. Has anyone found this to be a balance issue?

 

[Tarquelne]

I think it is a design fail to have a building that just makes it slightly harder for people to spy on you in one particular city.

What's not to love about providing nothing more than a passive modifier on something that may not be happening?

Re: Marines

Does anyone know about AI use of the melee ships? I was wondering about that, too: If the AI uses them decently I think it's worth keeping an anti-ship/anti-city unit in each era.

Otherwise, I'm hoping Thal just tweaks Marines to fit into VEM's military structure rather than revamping them as naval units, and adds a pure anti-ship unit.

 

[Thalassicus]

Last year I tried the pike->lancer upgrade path for a while. I prefer pike->musket. The problem with pike to lancer is the counter unit line goes:

2 moves no-resource pike
4 moves horse lancer
2 moves no-resource antitank
4 moves aluminum helicopter

It alternates strategic/nonstrategic and 4/2 moves, which is really weird.


@Tarquelne
I prefer working with existing units/buildings wherever possible instead of adding new ones. One good example is the bomb shelter. I think it's redundant to add a building exclusively for nuke defense when that bonus can simply be placed on Military Bases. Combining them gives us one good building instead of two weak ones.

 

[Ahriman]

It alternates strategic/nonstrategic and 4/2 moves, which is really weird.

One good example is the bomb shelter. I think it's redundant to add a building exclusively for nuke defense when that bonus can simply be placed on Military Bases. Combining them gives us one good building instead of two weak ones.

Strongly agree with both of these.
Pike to musket works well - and is of course historically more realistic.

 

[Tarquelne]

I prefer working with existing units/buildings wherever possible instead of adding new ones.

I think that's a good idea. However, AIUI that's not what you're planning with Marines. That seems more accurately described as deleting an existing land unit and adding a new naval unit that happens to have the same name. The units have a similarity in that they can both attack cites from the sea. But otherwise they're quite different.

re: pikes
I'm also a pike->musket fan. Going to lancers instead is just putting the rather artificial unit category scheme over both history and history's opposite, common sense.

 

[Txurce]

I'm also a pike->musket fan. Going to lancers instead is just putting the rather artificial unit category scheme over both history and history's opposite, common sense.

I've seen the history point argued from both sides on the main thread.

One of the G&K upsides is that Lancers/AT/Helicopters aren't brand-new unpromoted units, but part of a tree starting with spears. This helps the Ottomans and Swedes, and of course makes it more likely that you will employ Lancers as well. Another is a longer gap before pikes have the option to upgrade.

If destroyers weren't capable of taking cities, the G&K Marines unit (covered by a ship) would gain value.

 

[rcspring]

I have two suggestions for leaders.
1) For the vikings, give them a melee ship (a longboat) in addition to the berserker. The longboat and the berseker together would allow the Vikings to raid and pillage as they should.

2) For the British, remove the extra spy and instead make their Great Admirals more effective (maybe 25% instead of 15%). Give British great admirals the "Nelson Touch." Also, replace the +2 movement and keep the 30 Xp points.

 

[antonn]

One possibility (though probably not possible with existing code) is that you should be able to have defensive spies work everywhere, rather than needing to station them in a particular city. So if you're the tech leader and put all your spies on defense, then it will be very hard for anyone to steal from you.
In contrast, the police station buildings seem really weak. I think it is a design fail to have a building that just makes it slightly harder for people to spy on you in one particular city.

Not really sure what to think about defensive spying.
In a culture game, I caught Rome trying to steal from me every chance they had, but wasn't too advanced to be spied on by multiple civs.
When I was playing a science game with Korea, I had all spy buildings, a rank 3 spy in Seoul & AI players were still consistently stealing from me successfully. (The pop ups do tell you what city you were stolen from.)

Stealing techs doesn't seem to be too overpowered. If you're going for science victory, you'll be progressing faster than other civs anyway. It does take a significant amount of time to steal (like it took 40 turns to steal something I could have researched in 8) & you may also get caught.

The religious building is already put to the rest for the most part, but one thing to keep in my mind with religious bonuses, is that once something is chosen, no one else can choose that bonus as well (Think the Byzantine bonus is the only exception to this). Adding more buildings devalues the bonus of being one of the first to found & enhance your religion.

 

[Stalker0]

I think it's redundant to add a building exclusively for nuke defense when that bonus can simply be placed on Military Bases. .

Except now I have to build walls, castles, and then the military base to get nuke defense.