Nerfed, buffed, and meh (civilizations)

[ahawk]

Completely in agreement with the OP about the Dutch:
1) The Dutch lost the amazing flood-plains + polders combo because rivers no longer add gold
2) Lump-sum needing friendship means the Dutch better hope AIs are looking for friends


Other thoughts:

* I didn't realize it at first, but India got a slight buff: being able to use trade-routes to move food now means you can almost guarantee enough food to make use of the UA sufficiently. It's a lot easier now that you can pump food into each city, so long as you have one very good food-yielding site.

* Ethiopia, Maya, and anyone else with buildings or UAs that provide extra faith now can get a Reformation belief to make better use of the globs of late-game faith.

* Aztecs now look better than ever, since cultural buildings now provide little culture without a Great Work, and getting Great Works isn't always at the top of the list of things to do. Aztecs now can get culture in the early game even better in comparision to other civs who will need to wait until mid-game to crank out Great Works.

* Germany took a severe hit. The Zulu UU is a pike UU, the Zulu UA has an XP bonus, and the Zulu UB synergizes well with the UU and UA and provides ridiculous bonuses to melee. Unless you really like Panzers, Germany now has a much better clone of itself, as someone already said above.

* America took a big hit, too. Shoshone UA gives them extra tiles for free (rather than paying), and even worse, early-game lump-sum trades have been removed, so buying those early (and important) tiles is harder than ever for America.

* This might have been the case before and I just had forgotten, but now Marble only boosts ancient/classical wonder production. If this is indeed a change, than Egypt got a slight buff.

* Chinese UB now looks excellent again rather than just good. No gold yield on rivers/coasts means any other way of making gold is pretty helpful.

 

[Miravlix]

Completely in agreement with the OP about the Dutch:
1) The Dutch lost the amazing flood-plains + polders combo because rivers no longer add gold

People really need to stop spreading this falsehood.

1: Rivers add 25% gold
2: Rivers extend land based trade routes range.

 

[Bakspatel]

You are right that that WAS the idea of the Dutch in G&K. To say that it is a disadvantage, though, is just bullcrap, though. You can still trade a lux with a friendly AI for 6gpt, which is basically a trade route in the early game. You can also trade your last resource for a new resource, giving you +2 effective happiness. Polders are also still in the top 3 UI's, too, IMO.

Well, that is still a nerf right so a disadvantage I read contradicting stories about how bad this new trading rule seems to be and it is frustrating that I have to wait another two days before being able to find it out by myself. But the way you put it sounds as it still looks okay.
Polders of course are still amazing, but we were talking about the UA

 

[ahawk]

People really need to stop spreading this falsehood.

1: Rivers add 25% gold
2: Rivers extend land based trade routes range.

Those are true, but that's not what I'm talking about. Settling on a river gives you those things, yes, but the tiles themselves now give no raw gold. Meaning that the late-game flood-plains/polder combo that netted something like 4 raw gold plus raw production and raw food (some of which only comes about after Economics, hence late-game combo) is gone.

So, the %-based bonus for settling on a river is nice, but with a lot lower raw-yield of gold, it really means that the polder is more of a trade-off: no gold until after researching Economics, and even then, one less gold than trading-posts. Because rivers provide no raw-yield, that means to make the most of the 25% gold boost for being on a river, well, you might be better off just going with trade-posts if the gold is more important to you than the food and production of the polder.

It's not a falsehood because the polder used to be, basically, a better version of the trading-post, while now it's just a different version. Still better, probably, in many cases (even up to 85% of cases, I'd guess), but not automatically the better choice anymore.

 

[eazyseeker]

People really need to stop spreading this falsehood.

1: Rivers add 25% gold
2: Rivers extend land based trade routes range.

Being European, I did not test this yet, but is (2) true for all civs? As far as I remember, it was only listed as part of Belgium's UA in SfA. Could be wrong.

 

[pilot00]

America, Japan and Germany are just completely dead now. There is NO reason to play them when there are civs that do what they do only much much better.
Celts are also useless. Always have been and always will be (Unless you think choosing a pantheon first is very important, which it isn't.). But nothing new there.

Well now...Celts were useless really?

IMHO they were one of the good civs for a dom victory. I certainly had the fastest ones with them. Just focused on religion and got Holy warriors, the rest is history.
I can only think that Piety in the ancient will only help them more in this strategt now, and the fact that they can get units even in the latter eras.

Mongolia: With the importance of City-States becoming more significant, I find that the 30% bonus to them is much less good. Why destroy your early trade partners? Why make others eternally angry at you? That puts your trade routes in jeopardy if they declare war unless you trade internally or with CS, but you need that money.

Keshiks and Khans are still as awesome as ever.

Haven't played BNW yet but I would wager on: Destroying them later as to prevent alliances that would vote resolutions that don't benefit you? After all its a strategy that will make Alex and Siam cry a bit. Not only will they loose gold, and diminish the effects of their UA but it will also make them waste social polices in effect.

Does their new capital function as a full city or is it still a puppet?

I would venture a guess that it becomes a formal capital. In G&Ks I had once conquered the Inca and they were forced to move their capital to Monaco. It still retained the former CS icon but for all effects and purposes it was an Annexed city that served as a Capital. Cant see why this would change.

Those are true, but that's not what I'm talking about. Settling on a river gives you those things, yes, but the tiles themselves now give no raw gold. Meaning that the late-game flood-plains/polder combo that netted something like 4 raw gold plus raw production and raw food (some of which only comes about after Economics, hence late-game combo) is gone.

So, the %-based bonus for settling on a river is nice, but with a lot lower raw-yield of gold, it really means that the polder is more of a trade-off: no gold until after researching Economics, and even then, one less gold than trading-posts. Because rivers provide no raw-yield, that means to make the most of the 25% gold boost for being on a river, well, you might be better off just going with trade-posts if the gold is more important to you than the food and production of the polder.

It's not a falsehood because the polder used to be, basically, a better version of the trading-post, while now it's just a different version. Still better, probably, in many cases (even up to 85% of cases, I'd guess), but not automatically the better choice anymore.

I am using your post as a platform to express a thought that occurred to me: It seems with the loss of flat out gold generation, we need to stop producing farms like crazy in our core cities and plant a couple of trading posts here and there as well regardless of rationalism. Also precisely for this reason, it seems a good jungle with some hills to be a pretty good starting location right now.

 

[j51]

The Arabs, who were already one of the strongest IMHO, got a huge buff. Replacing 2 gold/city connection with 50% longer caravans is a much larger gold pay off. Plus the religious spread bonus is just even more icing on the cake.

 

[Viregel]

The Inca ability now might as well read:
"Great Andean road-
FREE MONEY!
Also some BS about hill movement
But more importantly FREE MONEY!

It's not "free money", it's more opportunities to save and earn gold...

Fine, it's free money.

 

[Adoombray]

the buff to trade routes on Arab is so amazing. This makes me really happy because I didn't play GnK as much as I would have liked with other gaming distractions and that pain in the neck "responsibility" nerf that comes with age IRL, but trade routes are so amazing for even close neighbors let alone with the extra range and being able to "pick on" the civ that is running away with the early game. the religious pressure that caravans bring is just icing on the cake. I have tended to get beat to most religions and if the tile bias is heavy and i don't get desert faith i just restart, but other than that the rich got richer for this renamed-to-Saladin player.

 

[Mesix]

How about Carthage? How do changes to trading and coastal cities affect their UA to receive a free Harbor in every city?

 

[Ulthwithian]

How about Carthage? How do changes to trading and coastal cities affect their UA to receive a free Harbor in every city?

Carthage loses auto- for sea resources, which can hurt early performance. It, however, is a trading powerhouse, and one important ramification is that they can beeline IW to get the Colossus without suffering as much from the lack of sea infrastructure.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

The Inca ability now might as well read:
"Great Andean road-
FREE MONEY!
Also some BS about hill movement
But more importantly FREE MONEY!

Those free roads must REALLY extend caravan length, not too mention all the easy city connections.

France, while being overhauled, not just buffed, ought to be mentioned. The new UA is much stronger than it looks on paper when you couple it with the Aesthetics finisher. The Chateau produces culture and , both of which are harder to come by now, and producing tourism with hotels. I myself neglect musketeers, however, since they're far off the culture path.

 

[seasnake]

Carthage loses auto- for sea resources, which can hurt early performance. It, however, is a trading powerhouse, and one important ramification is that they can beeline IW to get the Colossus without suffering as much from the lack of sea infrastructure.

Yeah, Carthage I think stayed about the same, enough bad/good offsetting.

Played further on, I think Greece is stronger now with the UA, keeping alliances with citystates really pays off with World Congress. Of course Venice in the game weakens that a little because they can even buy allied city states, unlike Austria.

I Ethiopia might be slightly nerfed because less civs are going wide, so Spirit of Adwa kicks in less often. A tall Ethiopian player was pretty much guaranteed a likelihood of a bonus in combat, now with civs like Venice and the science penalty there's more chance of fighting a strong tall civ.

The internal trade routes REALLY helps India, I was amazed at how quickly you can grow a select city or two. The problem with India was always the amount of turns you had to wait before the population bonus outweighed the extra city hit. That time has been dramatically decreased, and if you're India you'd be a fool to not systematically invest 1 or 2 trade routes growing your best three cities to astronomical levels.

 

[seasnake]

I guess Sweden would be slightly buffed due to the increased importance of DOFs and great people?

Yeah, and frankly Sweden was already one of the best civs in the game. So many extra great people and flexibility, there's little like using a Great General to support your army for a while then using him to secure an alliance with a citystate.

 

[GKShaman]

Also with everything in the early game being a bit more peaceful and slower, India has more time to deal with the unhappiness problem.

Carthage seems much better. Can their caravans also go over mountains? Free Harbors when sea routes make more money? yes please.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

Yeah, and frankly Sweden was already one of the best civs in the game. So many extra great people and flexibility, there's little like using a Great General to support your army for a while then using him to secure an alliance with a citystate.

Three city conversions with a great prophet and Gift it.

 

[bhavv]

Inca are probably going to become my top civ again for their cheap roads combined with the new trading stuff.

 

[Nicasen]

I'd say the changes gave Spain a boost. Getting 500 gold in the ancient era was very strong before, but now that early game gold is so hard to come by it's much more useful. As for Sweden I think they're split 50/50, DoFs are actually possible now without pissing off everyone else. However, gaining city state influence is a lot easier now and even though you get more great people overall it's hard to justify losing them for just 90 influence.

 

[Babri]

People really need to stop spreading this falsehood.

1: Rivers add 25% gold
2: Rivers extend land based trade routes range.

This.

Those are true, but that's not what I'm talking about. Settling on a river gives you those things, yes, but the tiles themselves now give no raw gold. Meaning that the late-game flood-plains/polder combo that netted something like 4 raw gold plus raw production and raw food (some of which only comes about after Economics, hence late-game combo) is gone.

So, the %-based bonus for settling on a river is nice, but with a lot lower raw-yield of gold, it really means that the polder is more of a trade-off: no gold until after researching Economics, and even then, one less gold than trading-posts. Because rivers provide no raw-yield, that means to make the most of the 25% gold boost for being on a river, well, you might be better off just going with trade-posts if the gold is more important to you than the food and production of the polder.

It's not a falsehood because the polder used to be, basically, a better version of the trading-post, while now it's just a different version. Still better, probably, in many cases (even up to 85% of cases, I'd guess), but not automatically the better choice anymore.

So suddenly loosing 1 gold on river makes polders less useful?? What has polder to with it, it still gets a boost with economics to gold & production. Also even if you somehow account the river gold loss to polder on floodplains, then you should realize that TPs on riverside also lost that 1 gold so your comparison is invalid. It is still a muchh better version of TP.

 

[Loopdy Doopdy]

Carthage seems much better. Can their caravans also go over mountains?

OMG yes please if they can that would be truly amazing.