Old Civs Indirect Buffs/Nerfs

The :c5production: of Russia seems to get slightly better than it is now,due to the possibility of transferring :c5production: between cities .
 
We haven't seen any proof that they are actually moving production around rather than just generating it by the trade route.
 
Indirect nerf to the existing science civs from Assyria.
UB of Assyria: Library replacement
UU of Assyria: Replaces a Catapult
UA of Assyria: ALL YOUR TECH ALL BELONG TO US. (Gain a tech when capturing a city.)
 
Nerf: Austria. City states now provide delegates making diplomatic marriage less profitable.

Buff: France. 2 culture per city will be more valuable since cultural buildings generate less. But all old cultural numbers and costs are subject to change so we don't know.

Nerf: Mongols. City states now provide delegates making capturing them less profitable.

Buff: Ottomans. Their early price ship armada can be really useful for pillaging all others sea trade routes.
 
Nerf: Austria. City states now provide delegates making diplomatic marriage less profitable.

Buff: France. 2 culture per city will be more valuable since cultural buildings generate less. But all old cultural numbers and costs are subject to change so we don't know.

Nerf: Mongols. City states now provide delegates making capturing them less profitable.

Buff: Ottomans. Their early price ship armada can be really useful for pillaging all others sea trade routes.

I agree about culture being an unknown. I suspect that policies will be cheaper, because otherwise Poland's UA seems overpowered. I also suspect that the increase in cost for each new policy will be lower, considering that there are two more trees and that completing policy trees is no longer a direct win condition. And I also suspect that France's UA will drop to 1 culture per city, and the Monument as well.
 
The arab 1+gold per trade route UA might be reworked somehow? If it stays the same, a tall arab empire might come slightly better out of it then today, since you now may have more trade routes then you have cities. Amount of luxuries might also effect the trade route income, and give the arabs a boost if their UB (Bazaar) bonus counts there.
 
I would argue, absent a change, that all culture-focused civs get weakened a bit because they don't get a bonus to tourism. Because of that, they don't have as much of an advantage at winning the game. Polynesia is made up for it in other ways (World Congress, Trade Routes), but I am a bit concerned about the Aztecs.

Now it might just be as simple as picking the Aesthetics tree, though, which should make up for it.
 
We saw a barbarian axemen in one screenshot.

All civs that can profit from barb hunting will be effekted by that.

Germany may get better units, monti may score more culture, anyone going honor will profit.

Also, turtles profit because expanssion will be a little harder if the barbs are stronger
 
Iroquois might get nerfed since they can only save money from forests. Tho, im not sure if forests gives any different effects to the caravans.
 
Well caravans can normally only move one tile. So for the Iroquois it will still count as a road for caravans to move 2 tiles
 
I'm pretty sure caravans/cargo ships provide gold,food or production per turn, so is there any benefit of them going between each city quicker?

Unless the speed at which they go between cities is also part of the calculations for profit, the only benefit I can see for increased movement of these trade units (via Iroquois forests, England faster naval movement etc) will be the ability to avoid raiders easier, which may be benefit enough.

I've been thinking, as each resource is taking into account when determining money from trade routes, can we safely assume if any resources are pillaged during the duration of the trade route will lower the GPT? and if a new resource is connected, an increase?
 
I'm pretty sure caravans/cargo ships provide gold,food or production per turn, so is there any benefit of them going between each city quicker?

Unless the speed at which they go between cities is also part of the calculations for profit, the only benefit I can see for increased movement of these trade units (via Iroquois forests, England faster naval movement etc) will be the ability to avoid raiders easier, which may be benefit enough.

I've been thinking, as each resource is taking into account when determining money from trade routes, can we safely assume if any resources are pillaged during the duration of the trade route will lower the GPT? and if a new resource is connected, an increase?

This is also what I think. The only reason there is a Trade Unit on the map is so that you get the satisfaction of ambushing them in war. Its speed is not a function of its value, it is a function of its vulnerability. I suspect that the movement value is going to be (distance/x) where distance is the amount of tiles between origin and destination and x is a coefficient determined by technology level, land or sea, and possibly the civ's UA.

That way, the Trade Unit is always vulnerable for some amount of time.
 
Actually it appears its speed does appear to have value. Having roads indirectly extends the caravan's range apparently as you can see the city state of Zanzibar in the demo being further than 10 tiles away, but being made possible to connect with the city because of roads.
 
Flip side of this is a buff to Greece and Sweden who are likely to pick up more world congress votes.

About Sweden,they got an easily unnoticed buff . Since International trade routes are being added,it means that there will be more opportunities to get into friendly status with other civilizations,even the ones that just happen to have frontier with yours . Because it will be a bit easier to get friendly status,it will also be easier to get a bit more Declaration of Friendships,which is great for civilizations heavily tailored to diplomacy,like Sweden and to some extent,to Arabia and Netherlands as well.
 
I think you're all counting out conquering City States too quickly here. Sure, CS's provide delegates, but probably no more than say, having a city that same size will produce. (I'm making an educated guess at this point in time that population = delegates.) With this line of thinking, it would make sense that allied CS's just add their delegates (population) to your delegate count for votes/propositions.

Since you can usually grow an annexed (or even puppetted) CS at a faster rate than the CS itself grows, adding a CS to your empire should still provide a boost to your delegate count (assuming pop = del) with still having the opportunity cost of the CS benefits.
 
I think you're all counting out conquering City States too quickly here. Sure, CS's provide delegates, but probably no more than say, having a city that same size will produce. (I'm making an educated guess at this point in time that population = delegates.) With this line of thinking, it would make sense that allied CS's just add their delegates (population) to your delegate count for votes/propositions.

Since you can usually grow an annexed (or even puppetted) CS at a faster rate than the CS itself grows, adding a CS to your empire should still provide a boost to your delegate count (assuming pop = del) with still having the opportunity cost of the CS benefits.

Well your idea could be true, but to me it seems more likely that stick to the voting system for diplomatic victory. They seem to want to portrait CS like full nations.
 
Well your idea could be true, but to me it seems more likely that stick to the voting system for diplomatic victory. They seem to want to portrait CS like full nations.

CS's would still matter as they're a much easier way to accrue delegates than founding and growing your own city. And even though we have little information at this point, I think it makes sense to assume that population = delegates because in real life delegates are the people expected to vote in elections.

Plus, making population = delegates would still give Tall civs an edge in the expansion, as they would still be able to compete diplomatically despite all the other "nerfs" they face and "buffs" wide seems to be getting.
 
I agree. It seems likely that your influence in the WC will be proportional to your empires population + the population of city-states with whom you are allied. For Austria to add their city-states allies to their empire would no lower their delegates, but instead keep it the same while denying their rivals the potential of stealing away the city-state allies. Austria doesn't kill half the population when they DM them.

For the Mongols it makes less sense to attack city-states because the city-states are worth more as allies than as conquered puppets. So the only reason is to knock delegates away from a rival like Greece who holds on to city-states pretty tightly.
 
CS's would still matter as they're a much easier way to accrue delegates than founding and growing your own city. And even though we have little information at this point, I think it makes sense to assume that population = delegates because in real life delegates are the people expected to vote in elections.

Plus, making population = delegates would still give Tall civs an edge in the expansion, as they would still be able to compete diplomatically despite all the other "nerfs" they face and "buffs" wide seems to be getting.

i have to disagree with population = delegates. UN doesn't work that way, NATO doesn't that way etc. in that case, world congress would improve position of strong players, but i think it'll be more like colective rule with everyone on the map (or with an original capital) with the same vote as other civs. (with the fact, that powerful player will have easier time getting away with sanctions.) also as you say, this will be another blow for tall civs, so i don't think that this will be the case.
 
Top Bottom