as the person who brought this up, I think my hope was really to just give the khan an improvement that encouraged the nomadic style of play instead of just a boosted citadel. With the tile expansion you get from the ger and the aggressive style of play for the mongols, I was trying to say that it might be better to get rid of the tile expansion completely and get more interesting benefits and maybe some different yields (food and gold instead of science?). As the mongols, if you want a tile you should just DOW and take it by force. I think having the ability to heal regardless of an action being taken would be better than the citadel defensive bonuses, so it acts like a quick healing station for your skirmishers when an enemy manages to hit them. I'd rather have that than more defensive capabilities.
Mongolia
- Thread starter Der_Zorn_gottes
- Start date
as the person who brought this up, I think my hope was really to just give the khan an improvement that encouraged the nomadic style of play instead of just a boosted citadel. With the tile expansion you get from the ger and the aggressive style of play for the mongols, I was trying to say that it might be better to get rid of the tile expansion completely and get more interesting benefits and maybe some different yields (food and gold instead of science?). As the mongols, if you want a tile you should just DOW and take it by force. I think having the ability to heal regardless of an action being taken would be better than the citadel defensive bonuses, so it acts like a quick healing station for your skirmishers when an enemy manages to hit them. I'd rather have that than more defensive capabilities.
Well first of all, I don't think they are anywhere near one of the best civs in the game, but that's besides the point. The reason why I want a change like this is because of the nature of unique great people. A replacement great person should imho be better at everything than a normal great person, otherwise their bonuses just feels like drawbacks when you use them for the other purpose.
For example, making a citadel as Mongolia is way more costly than making a citadel as any other civ, because the other side of the Khan is so much stronger than a normal GG, meaning you're giving up more.
Yes, maybe this doesn't matter that much as once you have 3 khan you don't have any use for more of them, but that just doesn't matter. Just the fact that you have pretty much no choice in how to use your first two Khan is a major designflaw and goes completely against the whole base design of great people.
Besides, I clearly stated that the combat-side bonuses of the khan could be tuned down if necessarily.
Because the khan, their unique unit builds it?
Galbias
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 488
One other thing that might be neat would be an additional small bonus (10-20%) for only the unit sharing the same tile as the Khan. Makes you think more about where to put them and makes additional Khans past the first one still useful.
Or maybe the terrifying opponent debuff to nearby enemies like it's an elephant, but I like the first one more.
Or maybe the terrifying opponent debuff to nearby enemies like it's an elephant, but I like the first one more.
Last edited:
Sounds like an enormous amount of messy movement to me, Khans and Skirmishers have so much movement, you could easily give that extra bonus to 10+ units a turn.
I think buffing the citadel makes the most sense, right now the issue isn't that Mongolia is weak, it sort of just feels bad to have all those extra Khan. Having a citadel with a few extra food or hammers really isn't an enormous buff either
I agree this is the main concern, which isn't really a mongolian thing. Sure you may only need 2 knan's in the game, and extra are "wasted". But those 2 khan's are amazing, so who cares really.
The question is more about GGs in general, should they have mechanics like the GAdmiral to let them retire with a bonus?
My Leadership Reformation. Once a nation is no longer at war, Great Generals and Great Admirals will "retire" and provides bonuses to the capital. (If a Great General was born Innovative, he or she will provide +1/2/3 Science depending on how ranked he or she was from past war). The same applies to Khans and all unique units of Great Generals and Admirals.
Galbias
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 488
I definitely would like to see that. Maybe they could be spent to fortify a city, giving you a permanent boost to defense there? Still sort of military oriented but would help with Happiness.
Good point, I wasn't thinking about the enhanced movement, I could definitely see that getting tedious.
Well, solution to that is fairly simple - make each next general give more bonus or (more hectic) make the bonus stack. The first solution would be easier and better - the more you learn about military, the better generals you get. So at first you get +10% next one +15% and so on. Or +3% for the next one, all depending on balance. And yes, I know it would still give you a lot of older, obsolete generals, but at least there would be some incentive and joy for player to get new ones.
Last edited:
I really don't see a problem with the normal great generals, the Citadel is great and I'm usually even dumping my last available great general to get one up. The Khan and to a lesser extent the Zulu GG however suffers from only having bonuses to the passive side of the GG, and for that reason making the citadel feel a lot less interesting.
tu_79
Deity
That doesn't solve the problem of what to do with retired generals.
What about this: expend in a puppet city to boost production, so you can build Courthouses in one turn. Or perhaps: grants +1 happiness if garrisoned in a puppet city. This way you have to decide if a citadels worths losing 1 happiness.
Meticulous
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2016
- Messages
- 29
I like this idea, but that seems like too small a boost for a great person. How about: Great Generals can be retired in puppet cities as governors, immediately annexing the city, ending resistance and providing a free courthouse.
tu_79
Deity
That's quite strong. In addition to the faster horses, that could make Mongolia win too fast. But don't take my words too seriously, as I am not a good warmonger.
Additional AI elements are not in the cards right now. Mongolia does so well already. Do they need more?
As I've tried relaying multiple times now, the fact that the khan's combat-power is greater than an average GG makes the mongolian citadel both weaker and more expensive than a normal citadel in comparison, I don't really think that's very good design. It is the same situation as the MoV before they got their unique town, the Venetian town was just more expensive to use because all the MoVs other abilities were stronger and this weakened the aspect of choice with that GP.
If an improved citadel is out of the question, might I at least suggest adding some bonus that triggers when you consume the GG to build a citadel? A shorter golden age, a shorter WLTKD, some yields that scale with era? A stronger citadel would clearly be a better choice, but at least this is something.
BazaarJack
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 55
New here (first post!) : I've been playing VP for the last couple months (currently on 2-15), and congrats on the great game you guys are all a part of. I've seen some imbalanced aspects of the game, but nothing fun destroying till Mongolia. Just lost a Emporer/Epic game on turn 468 playing as France, and Mongolia somehow won a Cultural Victory. I'm guessing this is related to tourism from Historical events. They have a religion (no Tourism beliefs), 5 wonders, and 56 cities. I was playing on the YNAEMP Giant Earth, and all the other top civs are doing well, but our last hold out, Ethiopa was just run over with a dump truck of tourism (130k). I've read before that we don't balance around particular maps, so maybe that's the reasoning here, but I also wanted to mention that Mongolia's heavy tribute UA seems to be a bit overpowered as well. I think the UA is perfect for them, but shouldn't there at least be a requirement of 2 units or more on the borders for heavy tribute? Without even sending military they conquered pretty much every city state (minus the Americas). I think there should be a tourism destroying mechanic that is added to their heavy tribute ability to counterbalance as well. Should Mongolia ever be winning a culture victory??
tu_79
Deity
Hisqtorical Events are going to be reduced in next release. I don't know about Mongols being too powerful, haven't met them yet with their new UA. It's supposed to be two city states per civ, if your map does not the same, it can be unbalanced.
BazaarJack
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 55
Well I was being a bit flippant with that remark! Of course, if a human player were playing Mongolia with the goal of a CV and winning sporadic wars to boost tourism and strategically taking CS(s) with that goal in mind then all right , but if the AI is essentially playing a domination strategy and still being rewarded as if they were playing towards culture, then I say it's unbalanced. They shouldn't get to have their cake AND eat it too.
If I understand the tourism mechanic correctly, it should be reducing effective tourism by the # of cities up to a limit (maybe puppets don't count?). Also, this is only my best guess at what's happening..I don't know how to verify where they generated all the tourism influence. They only had about 30 tourism at Renaissance, but were already influential with ~10/14. They quickly culturally overcame an Inca civ with no North/South American rivals that had 36 cities of their own and were probably undiscovered for at least half the game 200ish turns - which seems broken.
I went with almost all defaults for the map 22 civs and 44? CS. Just wait till you see CS allies getting flipped instantly from halfway across the map with no Mongol military presence and then watch their tourism skyrocket - it killed an otherwise interesting game.
Suggestions:
1. Require border military presence to demand HEAVY tribute for all civs (not just Mongolia) - although this would fall unevenly on them. (This makes sense, because if you can't actually reach them, because you don't have open borders with a rival, then why the hell should they fear you..) I played an aggressive Turk game where I was able to demand heavy tribute from CSes 15-20 tiles away that I only sent an explorer to - it was definitely cheese.
2. Conquering CS should cause a negative tourism effect (which makes sense within the spirit of the game)
First of all, I'd just like to say that my first comment was just a question, not meant to flip you off or anything. Just generally all victory conditions should be open to everyone. Just wanted to make that clear first. The AI pretty much decides on a VC to pursue based on their flavors and a bit of randomness and they go for it as well as they can. That being said, VP is designed so that going for any VC helps build upon the others as well, this was partially designed to counter the fact that most people just ignored Tourism in vanilla because they felt it was useless. And it makes sense doesn't it? In vanilla conquering cities helped with all aspects of the game other than tourism for some reason, more cities meant more science, more cities meant more gold (or in this case more paper) to bribe city-states, and more cities meant more production. Now it also partially increases your tourism and your culture output, although having a bigger empire also makes you more vulnerable to outside tourism, especially if you neglect infrastructure.
I'm not exactly sure which gamespeed you are playing on, but turn 468 sounds pretty late so it would make sense the game ended around that time, wouldn't it? I mean one of the major flaws of vanilla was that the AI just never tried to win, they just attacked their neighbors and then just sat there waiting for you to build a spaceship. In VP if an AI have heavy advantages and you don't decide to directly counter it out it is going to win the game, either by culture or by spaceship.
Second, Tourism is reduced by the number of cities a player controls, in fact you get a percentage bonus to tourism based on the difference in number of cities between you and the civ in question, and the other way around as well.
Third, the Mongolian heavy tribute mechanic requires heavy military presence just the same way that heavy tribute requires for other civs. It is close to impossible to do without having any units close to the city-state in question. It is definitely an annoying mechanic to deal with, but I wouldn't say that it breaks the game or anything like that.
Fourth, as you mentioned the game isn't exactly balanced around those extremely oversized maps, everything from happiness to military scores to culture output goes a little bit whack when a civ can settle 50 cities no problems. I'm also guessing this is part of the reason why you were having problems with Mongolian ranged heavy tribute, a 50 city empire would enable to him keep such a big standing army that he could demand tribute from far away, at least in theory.
Fifth, tourism mechanics have already changed quite a bit since this version (as has tribute demanding actually).
LukaSlovenia29
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,500
Playing on immortal against Mongolia in a few recent games gave me the impression that the force-CS-to-surrender leads to snowballing, once the first CS falls, it gets easier and easier for Genghis to bully the rest with each new that falls. Seems a tad OP at the moment. Perhaps implementing a cool-down period of 50 or so turns between annexation of CSs and allowing Mongolia to demand "regular" heavy tribute otherwise?
