Poland

It wouldn't be crazy at all, I've just viewed some saves, looked at what units would cost with a double cost and my conclusion is it wouldn't be crazy, it'd be by far the worst UA in the game unless we buffed it from the state I've suggested. Double maintenance cost units would be so high, not even Ducal Stable + UA would give you +GPT during the game unless you really had tons of pastures and probably reduced amount of used units (elite but few - fits, Poland in its golden age didn't have many soldiers). Otherwise, you'd probably need Cathedral and/or Thrift and/or Gold Monopoly at the very least to get even, let alone get money. AI playing Casimir would definitely be crippled if he didn't start next to a +Gold monopoly while being smart enough to prioritise it because he'd spend his money on roads too. Seriously, late game that'd be way more than -100-400 Gold per turn in many cases easily, that's not worth the gained Production, let alone be good or crazy. I remember one large game I've had 400 (or even 600, I forgot) unit maintenance in industrial era, and that's despite having free Imperialism garrisons and Authority unit maintenance discount. Without those, I would be losing way more. Pretty much the only way you'd get positive Gold that late in the game is if you also deliberately took that Autocracy policy that lowers all maintenance costs, but being forced to take a bad policy when others in the same situation can take good ones that actually help at conquest is not good. Still, even if you could get +GPT all game, the lost Gold from unit maintenance would not be worth gained Production, which is why other parts of the UA are meant to compensate. It'd need to be +50% unit maintenance cost (and/or not include civilians) at most to not be a detrimental UA overall, but it's unique enough I'd say. Investition could also, instead, have it's Gold cost halved, but even with +50% unit maintenance cost the UA would probably need to provide 1C 1GGP 2Gold per policy to not drown Casimir in early game debts.
Okay, seriously, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I'm saying that letting you instant-buy buildings is crazy, your response is to not ever mention buildings but instead talk bout some unitmaintenance that I don't care about at all.

It does not matter if you want to compensate for that insane ability with other abilities, the idea is still by default insane. Instant-build was removed from the game for a reason, and the game is adjusted to work around that fact.

Still, even if above wasn't the case, Babylon also gets a free Scientist and faster Scientists.
Doesn't matter one bit, it's still the exact same UA, with worse implementation.
It's kinda as if you suggested that Poland should get +6 movement for all mounted archers along with four times the maintenance, it doesn't matter if the Mongolian UA lets your mounted archers ignore ZoC, it's still a blatant rip off.

Discount on policies is way less fun than getting free policies starting from medieval which I'm sure you'll agree with - in one case you get a golden notification with a sound and get to pick one knowing only you do so, whereas in the other you might not even notice it's influence. It'd probably be better to just give a SoPol on reaching Chivalry or something, but whether discount or free one or two, your something fun part would really need to compensate. Can you suggest something? So far I see that almost no one really likes current UA (with me being probably close to neutral but something new'd be cool) so I make suggestions but nobody else makes his own. Make your own, full suggestion containing what you'd consider fun.
I don't agree, a find the idea of free social policies an abomination. It's encroaching way too much on wonder territory, it varies in value way too much to ever be balanced (as the free policy is always worth as much culture as the next policy, or in this case the next X policies) and worst of all, it completely ignores the idea that culture leads to policies.


Fun thing could be something like Yields when you enter a new era, yields when you adopt a policy. WLTKD when you enter a new era, WLTKD when you adopt a policy. Minor golden ages.

Could even have something along the lines of 'whenever you adopt a new policy, all cities grow 1 pop and generates 100% of their yield output' That 100% is of course just a placeholder value.
That along with cheaper policies would represent faster and better reforms, something which Casimir was famous for (I think?). Of course instantly gaining one population have some power-gaming value to it, which I'm personally not a fan of. But in general cities don't really tend to grow that much slower as the game goes in in CPP (unlike in vanilla), and you're not really that much in control of your culture output.


Reason why I don't want to make full suggestions is because I don't want this to be a one-man project. I've already made suggestions on how to fix the Ducal and the WH.
 
Okay, seriously, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I'm saying that letting you instant-buy buildings is crazy, your response is to not ever mention buildings but instead talk bout some unitmaintenance that I don't care about at all.

It does not matter if you want to compensate for that insane ability with other abilities, the idea is still by default insane. Instant-build was removed from the game for a reason, and the game is adjusted to work around that fact.

Because that was mentioned as part of the proposed UA. You can't look at one part of it, say it's insane when there's parts to reduce it's impact and, in fact, would make it absolutely unusable were it to be implemented as said in the first post (can't rushbuy a building when you'll almost never get out of the red anyway). Instant buildings or reduced investment cost is different enough but to each his own I guess.
Your wording is also not exactly friendly considering I'm the only one making suggestions here whereas you only sit here, are displeased about the UA and make nothing of substance but endless complaining as I try to be nice and make new ideas despite being merely neutral on the subject. The second part probably doesn't count anymore now that you've made your own suggestions to the UA below, though... See my opinion of them below.

I don't agree, a find the idea of free social policies an abomination. It's encroaching way too much on wonder territory, it varies in value way too much to ever be balanced (as the free policy is always worth as much culture as the next policy, or in this case the next X policies) and worst of all, it completely ignores the idea that culture leads to policies.

But it's unique and impactful. Feels like an UA should even if it's a nightmare balance wise and there's more interesting stuff that could possibly replace it.

Fun thing could be something like Yields when you enter a new era, yields when you adopt a policy. WLTKD when you enter a new era, WLTKD when you adopt a policy. Minor golden ages.

First idea encroaches on Arabia, it also gets yields (per turn) when it enters a new era as well as on other ocassions. In a more nitpicky fashion I can say same applies to anyone whose yields scale after entering a turn, they're effectively getting yields for doing so. It's kinda as if you suggested that Poland should get +6 movement for all mounted archers along with four times the maintenance, it doesn't matter if the Mongolian UA lets your mounted archers ignore ZoC, it's still a blatant rip off - and one with way less procs at that.

Yields when adopting a policy is same as Holy Law and not interesting in the least. To your merit, no civ gets that sort of thing directly from what I remember but I doubt many would consider that an entertaining or unique UA if that's all it has. I mean, the biggest flaw people claim here is that Polish UA doesn't change how you play and is not unique, how does it fix this problem?

Other civs effectively get stuff when they enter a new era too (either through scaling or other stuff, though that's nitpicking). While none would get WLTKDs which are a niche of China, your idea is just a more boring version of getting a free policy which at least feels impactful. Also Arabia. Imagine a CTRL C CTRL V'd Mongolian movement quote here.

China also effectively gets discounted policies from it's UA (thanks to Culture it has) and has tons of stronger WLTKD. With your suggestion of discounted policy + something giving WLTKD, Poland would become either an inferior or better China - unless you specify what, how, when and do so in a way that makes the end result unique. Copy paste your Mongolian movement quote, though in this case it's indirect so maybe don't.

Minor golden ages thing also needs you to reveal more, as it is there's tons of civs with GA stuff like Rome which effectively enters perma GA starting renaissance/industrial as long as you fight thanks to scaling yields. Same with Persia. In the current form as you've stated it, I cannot help myself but helpfully add that Montezuma already gets minor golden ages for getting good peace deals. This time I shall mercilessly use CTRL+V with extreme prejucide - it's kinda as if you suggested that Poland should get +6 movement for all mounted archers along with four times the maintenance, it doesn't matter if the Mongolian UA lets your mounted archers ignore ZoC, it's still a blatant rip off.

Could even have something along the lines of 'whenever you adopt a new policy, all cities grow 1 pop and generates 100% of their yield output' That 100% is of course just a placeholder value.
That along with cheaper policies would represent faster and better reforms, something which Casimir was famous for (I think?). Of course instantly gaining one population have some power-gaming value to it, which I'm personally not a fan of. But in general cities don't really tend to grow that much slower as the game goes in in CPP (unlike in vanilla), and you're not really that much in control of your culture output.

And what's fun about that? It doesn't change how you play one bit. Instead of focusing Culture as you do every game with every civ, you'll end up focusing Culture as you do every game with every civ. If it's uniqueness current Poland lacks as many people stated, how does it fix that problem? And why should Poland be that populous? It's going to end up taller than China and India with your idea. I mean, just finishing 3 policy trees grants you +18 pop in the capital and X in other cities. It'd become either a superior China or inferior China because of this, same problem as with your idea above. One way or another, you're effectively making a second China here. +6 movement mounted ranged Mongolia you know the drill. Could Ctrl+V as CTRL+C lasts until restart, but I refrained.

Reason why I don't want to make full suggestions is because I don't want this to be a one-man project. I've already made suggestions on how to fix the Ducal and the WH.

You made suggestions to stuff that were hardly revolutionary and not really specific whereas I've made suggestions for everything. What an one-man project.
 
Last edited:
Because that was mentioned as part of the proposed UA. You can't look at one part of it, say it's insane when there's parts to reduce it's impact and, in fact, would make it absolutely unusable were it to be implemented as said in the first post (can't rushbuy a building when you'll almost never get out of the red anyway). Instant buildings or reduced investment cost is different enough but to each his own I guess.
Your wording is also not exactly friendly considering I'm the only one making suggestions here whereas you only sit here, are displeased about the UA and make nothing of substance but endless complaining as I try to be nice and make new ideas despite being merely neutral on the subject. The second part probably doesn't count anymore now that you've made your own suggestions to the UA below, though... See my opinion of them below.
Yes, you can look at only one part, if that one is absolutely not going to work no matter what, the rest is worth considering.



But it's unique and impactful. Feels like an UA should even if it's a nightmare balance wise and there's more interesting stuff that could possibly replace it.
I disagree.


First idea encroaches on Arabia, it also gets yields (per turn) when it enters a new era as well as on other ocassions. In a more nitpicky fashion I can say same applies to anyone whose yields scale after entering a turn, they're effectively getting yields for doing so. It's kinda as if you suggested that Poland should get +6 movement for all mounted archers along with four times the maintenance, it doesn't matter if the Mongolian UA lets your mounted archers ignore ZoC, it's still a blatant rip off - and one with way less procs at that.
That's the biggest stretch I've ever seen. This suggestion does not interact with historical events at all. It provides flat yields, not per turn yields.
This would be like saying the current Polish UA encroaches on Morocco, because both provide social policies, even if one just provides culture, assuming you do something else.

Yields when adopting a policy is same as Holy Law and not interesting in the least. To your merit, no civ gets that sort of thing directly from what I remember but I doubt many would consider that an entertaining or unique UA if that's all it has. I mean, the biggest flaw people claim here is that Polish UA doesn't change how you play and is not unique, how does it fix this problem?

Other civs effectively get stuff when they enter a new era too (either through scaling or other stuff, though that's nitpicking). While none would get WLTKDs which are a niche of China, your idea is just a more boring version of getting a free policy which at least feels impactful. Also Arabia. Imagine a CTRL C CTRL V'd Mongolian movement quote here.

China also effectively gets discounted policies from it's UA (thanks to Culture it has) and has tons of stronger WLTKD. With your suggestion of discounted policy + something giving WLTKD, Poland would become either an inferior or better China - unless you specify what, how, when and do so in a way that makes the end result unique. Copy paste your Mongolian movement quote, though in this case it's indirect so maybe don't.

Minor golden ages thing also needs you to reveal more, as it is there's tons of civs with GA stuff like Rome which effectively enters perma GA starting renaissance/industrial as long as you fight thanks to scaling yields. Same with Persia. In the current form as you've stated it, I cannot help myself but helpfully add that Montezuma already gets minor golden ages for getting good peace deals. This time I shall mercilessly use CTRL+V with extreme prejucide - it's kinda as if you suggested that Poland should get +6 movement for all mounted archers along with four times the maintenance, it doesn't matter if the Mongolian UA lets your mounted archers ignore ZoC, it's still a blatant rip off.
Seriously can you just go de-salt yourself somewhere and come back tomorrow?

I have no problems with you disagreeing with my suggestions, they were in fact not even suggestions, they were examples. But this is far beyond nitpicking, this is just one massive stretch.


And what's fun about that? It doesn't change how you play one bit. Instead of focusing Culture as you do every game with every civ, you'll end up focusing Culture as you do every game with every civ. If it's uniqueness current Poland lacks as many people stated, how does it fix that problem? And why should Poland be that populous? It's going to end up taller than China and India with your idea. I mean, just finishing 3 policy trees grants you +18 pop in the capital and X in other cities. It'd become either a superior China or inferior China because of this, same problem as with your idea above. One way or another, you're effectively making a second China here. +6 movement mounted ranged Mongolia you know the drill. Could Ctrl+V as CTRL+C lasts until restart, but I refrained.



You made suggestions to stuff that were hardly revolutionary and not really specific whereas I've made suggestions for everything. What an one-man project.
Can you please go back 2 pages and read the part where the condition for the rework was that it should still remain completely vanilla, and not change how you play the game at all?


You don't seem to understand what one-man project means either. It's not about bragging or anything along those lines, it's about letting others get a say. I could definitely do the whole 'go there, do that' thing, but I don't want to.



Either way, no one else seems willing to discuss anything, and you're clearly not worth talking to so I'll just drop this.
 
Either way, no one else seems willing to discuss anything, and you're clearly not worth talking to so I'll just drop this.
Don't take this crap attitude. If you actually want discussion, start considering what others are saying. You aren't being disagreed with because others aren't reading your posts, you are being disagreed with because people don't agree. If you want this discussion to get somewhere, stop bringing up ideas that people have already stated they don't like (yields for social policy gain), or provide some actual reasoning why this idea is better than its being given credit for. Slapping the word into your post doesn't make the idea fun

Multiple people have stated they wouldn't find this fun, responding with the word fun sprinkled on your post isn't changing anyone's mind. Cheaper policies and yields on policies just sounds like snowball city to me, those games where you get culture ruins on coral you are just going to get easily get out of control. Didn't you state earlier that you agree its not a great idea, also for reasons of scaling?

@enrico/ on investment ideas
We need a concrete suggestion that makes some sense. Many of the ideas so far aren't fully panned out. I'm not a coding expert, but I suspect investing in units isn't really feasible (unless you want that unit class to be invested in forever). Same with the no maintenance for X turns, this seems pretty complicated to create, but from a gameplay perspective wouldn't it be very similar to just getting some bonus gold?
 
Last edited:
Don't take this crap attitude. If you actually want discussion, start considering what others are saying. You aren't being disagreed with because others aren't reading your posts, you are being disagreed with because people don't agree. If you want this discussion to get somewhere, stop bringing up ideas that people have already stated they don't like (yields for social policy gain), or provide some actual reasoning why this idea is better than its being given credit for. Slapping the wor

Multiple people have stated they wouldn't find this fun, responding with the word fun sprinkled on your post isn't changing anyone's mind. Cheaper policies and yields on policies just sounds like snowball city to me, those games where you get culture ruins on coral you are just going to get easily get out of control. Didn't you state earlier that you agree its not a great idea, also for reasons of scaling?
I was being unclear, I don't care that people disagree with me. But there just aren't anyone else discussing and I don't want a flamewar with enrco, so I drop this.


And I completely missed tu_79's post. So that's my bad.
 
That's the biggest stretch I've ever seen. This suggestion does not interact with historical events at all. It provides flat yields, not per turn yields.
This would be like saying the current Polish UA encroaches on Morocco, because both provide social policies, even if one just provides culture, assuming you do something else.

No, advancing to the next era is a historical event. There's also other historical events, just like in the proposed change only buildings would be instant (not wonders), meaning the difference is about the same as between my Babylon and Poland and your Poland and Arabia as they provide similar stuff for the same condition, except one also procs at more occassions (wonders and not only units in case of Babylon/Poland, spawning wonders/gp/etc in the case of other Poland and Arabia). Sure, the width of term changes, but it still counts. Nitpicking? Maybe, but if that's the case then the same applies to you.

Seriously, you could've simply just suggested dropping that part, you could have given your suggested changes or at least said what's wrong with the rest. I'm not an all-or-nothing type, parts of big UAs can be added and dropped at will, especially considering they're just suggestions and I've made tons of them already which should indicate that I don't really have much care for them (so I'm more likely to drop/add/change stuff), especially since we're probably going back to the old UA anyway - which I'm fine with, but it's fun for me to make such suggestions. Until I get bored that is.

Seriously can you just go de-salt yourself somewhere and come back tomorrow?

I have no problems with you disagreeing with my suggestions, they were in fact not even suggestions, they were examples. But this is far beyond nitpicking, this is just one massive stretch.

Those are mostly stretches and nitpicks which I've admitted myself and this is why I've made the copy-paste stuff - for humorous purposes. Salty guy would've just copied and pasted, I did it in a wordy manner. Still, at the very least short GA idea for X is Montezuma's and there's a ton of civs with Golden Age stuff so this particular case can't be called nitpicking. Though with your lack of description the others could very well be rip-offs as well depending on what conditions you had in mind.

Also examples when asked for suggestions should be considered suggestions because that's what they are. Calling them examples is just a shield from any possible criticism.

Can you please go back 2 pages and read the part where the condition for the rework was that it should still remain completely vanilla, and not change how you play the game at all?

You don't seem to understand what one-man project means either. It's not about bragging or anything along those lines, it's about letting others get a say. I could definitely do the whole 'go there, do that' thing, but I don't want to.

Well yeah, initially my suggestions were more vanilla-ish after that mention, but it admittedly became something completely different with time.

I know what that means, but I responded as such because it's important that everyone states his opinion. Nobody really cares for changes to WH/DS really, it's obvious that they should get something more if the UA gets less and maybe even a touch here and there regardless, though I admit at first for vanilla-like UA I did focus on the stable. What's more important and what seems to matter more for those who want a rework seems to be the UA. It's also not "go there, do that" because most likely nothing will change in this regard anyway which may be for the best. Current UA is not that bad imho, getting a golden notification and choosing a policy like that does feel cooler than some of the alternatives.

Either way, no one else seems willing to discuss anything, and you're clearly not worth talking to so I'll just drop this.

Aha. And you said I'm the salty one? Do forgive me, but it seems to me like you're the one proudly sporting Salt's +25% Growth monopoly. You even took Scientific Revolution to get more out of your Salt which I find to be rather admirable, though I hope Gazebo nerfs Rationalism next patch because it's too much for my liking. This tree probably deserves it anyway, it's gotten too good compared to the alternatives after all the buffs.

@enrico/ on investment ideas
We need a concrete suggestion that makes some sense. Many of the ideas so far aren't fully panned out. I'm not a coding expert, but I suspect investing in units isn't really feasible (unless you want that unit class to be invested in forever). Same with the no maintenance for X turns, this seems pretty complicated to create, but from a gameplay perspective wouldn't it be very similar to just getting some bonus gold?

I don't really know. I think that's the problem with unit investition. About maintenance, I guess it's the same as bonus gold and it reduces versatility (lose/reduce maintenance policies lose worth, meaning Authority/Imperialism are discouraged). I've given many suggestions that fit different gameplays and some that are more vanilla-ish so now is time for others to make theirs. Or the UA could remain as it is now which I am not really against, I've stated several times that though I'm not a fan of what it gets now, I don't mind if it stays. It takes too much effort to make up so many suggestions, I'm spent and won't make more, right now I'd at most suggest a change to someone's idea if he comes up with something cool.

I was being unclear, I don't care that people disagree with me. But there just aren't anyone else discussing and I don't want a flamewar with enrco, so I drop this.

And I completely missed tu_79's post. So that's my bad.

I don't want a flamewar neither but your posts make me doubtful you mean it. Still, let's just forget it.
 
If Cassimir were playing VP, I think he would have preferred to build barracks before units, so he began with fewer units but with more experience.

Perhaps, instead giving him the tools to invest in buildings, we could reward him for having invested in buildings, to make it different from the Babylon UA.

For example, having Barracks in half your cities increases starting XP by 5. Having barracks in all your cities increases starting XP by 10. The bonus is interesting enough to delay unit production, but you might need some units earlier anyway. In the end, you invest in building because you want those buildings fast.
 
I don't have a problem with Poland having a boringish UA if we can get either the DS or the WH a change instead. DS should prob get every city, and I certainly am on the side of getting rid the 'occasionally does about ten more damage but more often leaves an important unit out of position' promotion.
 
If Cassimir were playing VP, I think he would have preferred to build barracks before units, so he began with fewer units but with more experience.

Perhaps, instead giving him the tools to invest in buildings, we could reward him for having invested in buildings, to make it different from the Babylon UA.

For example, having Barracks in half your cities increases starting XP by 5. Having barracks in all your cities increases starting XP by 10. The bonus is interesting enough to delay unit production, but you might need some units earlier anyway. In the end, you invest in building because you want those buildings fast.

If I understand you right, I don't think that'd be possible to do unless only one set of buildings was affected. Otherwise, every bonus would probably need to be made separately and that's too much work and too complicated. Also if keeping it somehow vanilla-ish is the goal, it fails at that as it overly favours Tall (if you get another city, bonuses of XYZ buildings go away), but I don't know if the goal matters. It's an interesting idea but in it's current form, I bet it's impossible.

I don't have a problem with Poland having a boringish UA if we can get either the DS or the WH a change instead. DS should prob get every city, and I certainly am on the side of getting rid the 'occasionally does about ten more damage but more often leaves an important unit out of position' promotion.

Agreed on all points, but only partially on the last one. I do admit once Enginseer explained to me yesterday on github what heavy charge does after I reported it's lack of damage as a bug, I didn't even feel surprised I hadn't realised the thing worked. That's because providing at most/around 10 damage is very similar to the impact of randomness for every attack/defense, so it's almost impossible to even notice when not being told outright when it procs. Still, It doesn't have to go, but for something that has such strict conditions for proccing and is harmful most of the time, I'd expect something a regular human can notice without being blessed with tons of bionics.
 
A brainstorming suggestion:

UA - 1. Poland gains a large sum of culture upon entering a new era (scaling) and 2. All owned units gain (1?) extra CS (alternative x% CS) for each promotion it has (not sure how this works coding wise, perhaps via a unique promotion "elite" or sth like that).

UB - DS available via same technology as regular stable, doesn't require any resource to be built, more expensive than regular stables, provides 2gold and 2culture, provides all units from this city with a "loot" promotion -> gain "x" gold upon killing an enemy unit for each promotion the enemy unit had (scaling with era).

UU - unique promotion -> +25% for flanking and 25% if the enemy unit is surrounded by mountains, ocean/lake or tiles with other units (friendly or enemy).
 
Agreeing that Heavy Charge is pretty lame, would be happy to see it replaced with Charge I or an increased flanking bonus or whatever.

I like the idea of Ducal Stables providing 1 Horse. If you wanted to get fancy and make it an "every city" building, you could have Ducal Stable randomly spawn a 2-Horse resource near the city ala Candi maybe? I don't have too many problems with the current implementation but if we're talking about more significant buffs to make up for weaker UA it could work.

As far as UA goes, I'd rather see free policies get changed to alternating eras (Classic, Renaissance, Industrial, Information) than the current setup based on number of techs, number of techs works but it's boring and doesn't change your thought process much.
 
I think UA should stick with free policy. Large sum of culture will have impact on many other thing which will create some problem.

1. It hurts others trying to achieve tourism victory.
2. It will provide insane border growth
3. It will not justify in term of cs quest for culture race.

I will try to think of other impact(and sorry for bad english, hope y'all understand)

For the ub and uu, I am quite fine with all of them. It is not too weak or too strong.

And i am confused why so many people proposing to buff poland uu and ub, when poland overall is very strong already. The concern is "poland is boring, not weak".
 
Peter, good points. I'd be ok with the free social policies, but I thought I'd write down the alternative if people wanted to balance things by nerfing this aspect of the UA if the UB and UU were buffed. As for your concerns, the large sum of culture effect could perhaps be set up so it would count only towards social policies (like the culture from the "nomads" event counts only toward border growth (where you can pick a free military unit, culture, pop growth or money).
 
How about starting from ancient era Poland drops a nuke on one enemy capital (without triggering DoW, although the enemies you are currently at war with take a priority) every time it picks a policy?

That is too OP. Should be immediately annex one capital.
 
When you choose the Holy Law founder belief, finish Rationalism, get two free ideology policies which puts you into the next era. :)

Spoiler :
Civ5_Screen0035.jpg


Civ5_Screen0036.jpg


Nice 40k+ gold/science/faith in 2 turns.
 
Hi there! :)

I wonder, because i cannot find information anywhere else,

Have Poland UA changed since original game in Vox Populi?

Because as I play with them i seem to sometimes get a free policy and sometimes not... So, is it a feature by Vox Populi (a nerf i guess) or is it a bug i am encountering?
 
Have Poland UA changed since original game in Vox Populi?

Because as I play with them i seem to sometimes get a free policy and sometimes not... So, is it a feature by Vox Populi (a nerf i guess) or is it a bug i am encountering?
Poland gets a policy every other era, instead of every era.
 
Back
Top Bottom