Gokudo01
Emperor
or just nerf the top tier civs if you want "balance". If they are "middle of the pack" or mid-tier they are almost balanced. If you want a more balanced game, nerf the strongest civs, this usually reduces the yield inflation.
Ottoman
- Thread starter phantomaxl1207
- Start date
or just nerf the top tier civs if you want "balance". If they are "middle of the pack" or mid-tier they are almost balanced. If you want a more balanced game, nerf the strongest civs, this usually reduces the yield inflation.
tu_79
Deity
Wish it was that easy. First we need to identify that said civ is overperforming in several maps, difficulties and also in player hands. In my recent games, Ethiopia is just a tech force, getting to Renaissance in 720 aC, with a strong religion thanks to early spreading. Makes me want to take Addis Abbeba every game. But those game I didn't finish, so I can't say if Ethiopia is overpowered overall.
Not doable. We lack standarization here and definition of overperforming. I would go for standard map size and continents map. Still, you can easily stomp certain civs into ground if they get a bad start (Iroquis without forest, Polynesia on straight coast, Aztecs without jungle, Inca without hills). There are certain civs that have universal UA (Poland, Celts, India, China, Indonesia) and they aren't always OP, but consistent. And there is more - the sooner you get UA/UI/UB, the easier for you to snowball (as by design it is snowballing game). Thats why Babylon AI always has tech lead, IRQ will have awesome production and Ethiopia will rock faith.
We should at first check which civ isn't rocking in players hands and I think Ottoman is one of them. Or we can just do pure math and Ottomans aren't doing that well in this area either.
Mad Madigan
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2016
- Messages
- 403
The only problem I have with Ottoman currently is that just by math alone their UA is inferior to Portugal's for most cases, and they have to deal with the additional inconvenience of having to wait for the TR to complete to get their yields. I'm fine with the downside of having to wait for the TR to complete, but in turn the yields should be much higher to offset the opportunity cost that Portugal doesn't have to worry about. And Janissaries are great, but their Siege Workshop isn't so great as to justify having a subpar UA. But it sounds like Gazebo is already testing a buff, so I'm excited to see how it turns out. 
tu_79
Deity
I know. That's why a lot of testing is needed before affirming that one civ or another are OP. G does a lot of AI testing. We do some player testing, but since we have our favoured and hated civs, we don't test the full spectrum, nor in several maps. In that regard, the (bi)weekly challenge is quite useful.
The problem isn’t just numbers, but also mechanics. Some mechanics (like China’s) are top tier but the numbers can’t really come down any further. So we do need to bring some numbers up here and there. Inflation only exists if we buff _everyone_, which is not what we’re going to do.
G
Gokudo01
Emperor
I understand your point of view and it's the same issue with poland.
stormfallen
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 128
Maybe instead of straight-up buffing the yields, shift some to earlier in the route? E.g., "100 yields on completion, 25 after the route has existed for 10 turns." Maybe some coding magic would let it scale with game speed instead of a static 10 turns. This would buff the UA's QoL without needing to overbuff its numbers, or allow for abuse by having the yields too early.
Would it be possible to have yields proc whenever a trade unit returns to its home city? That could make for an interesting mechanic, either the first return as above or every return.
Would it be possible to have yields proc whenever a trade unit returns to its home city? That could make for an interesting mechanic, either the first return as above or every return.
That would heavily discourage engaging in any trade outside of your immediate neighbors or closest cities though.
The mechanic is fine, the numbers just dont match up. Honestly I doubt +200 would push them above China, Poland, etc. and would encourage active seeking of extra trade routes as a primary gameplan. I was tentative to suggest such a large buff but the UA is currently 2-4 turns yields and you could go an entire game without noticing much impact. And since there appears to be some traction, this is where i want to see them, slightly more rewarding than a +6 portugal
Yup, if every civ felt as powerful to play as China that would be great!
Yup, if every civ felt as powerful to play as China that would be great!
Last edited:
I think this is a solid buff idea, and its not really power creep either. I would say that the Ottomans are very solidly a B tier civ, buffing the UA is pretty reasonable.
Poland isn't that great currently, at least in my opinion. Getting two extra tenets at ideologies seems like a bit much but overall I wouldn't put it my top tier list
Txurce
Deity
Poland is flat-out not an "oh no" civ anymore. I can't remember the last time they were more than just solid in one of my games. They are B, sometimes less, seemingly happy to be vassalized (is that possible?). Even China is up and down. Songhai may be top dog in my games these days.
The 3 civs I watch out for currently are China, Inca and Songhai. China is a pretty complex civ so the AI doesn't always handle it that well, but in competent human hands its stupidly strong.
Txurce
Deity
Yes, that's why China seems to be feast or famine. Inca are a product of their environment. The Songhai, 'nuff said. Otherwise, quite a few civs are capable of getting ramped up and running away, but wind up in the pack often enough to not seem problematic. Should Songhai be nerfed some?
Probably. The culture they get from river tiles is sooo strong, they have plenty of early production. They can explore super fast around rivers to meet city states, find ruins, and clear camps quickly which give them tons of gold. The river movement onviouslg shouldnt be nerfed, nor should the culture, so it is some production from tabya, or some gold from encampments/pillaging. I think if they only got 2x gold theh would still be really strong.
Wrong thread but....
from the terrace farms, bonus 
from the UA, great military thanks to hill/ mountain movement. It doesn't actually seem that flavorful to me just because it has bonuses to basically everything.
Songhai's Tabya is really good, but I honestly don't like the rest of the civ that much. It could probably cut the bonus% to buildings
I really think that Inca should be nerfed. Its the only civ that I play often but have never lost with. He gets bonus
from the terrace farms, bonus from the UA, great military thanks to hill/ mountain movement. It doesn't actually seem that flavorful to me just because it has bonuses to basically everything.Songhai's Tabya is really good, but I honestly don't like the rest of the civ that much. It could probably cut the bonus% to buildings
ElliotS
Warmonger
The top AI civ for me is Egypt. I literally can't remember a game with them where they were not top dog until I killed them or lost to them. I'd rather face all three of those civs than 1 Egypt.
DIdn't happen with me. I had egypt in couple of my latest game, he was good, but no too good. However Askia alwas was.
My friend currently has a game with Haiawata who has 60 techs and 24 wonders on turn 210, standard. So his research speed is 1 technology every 3,5 turns an avarage and he build a wonder every 9th turn. He entered Moderd Era on turn 186.
