Poland

[kttdestroyer]

Poland gets a policy every other era, instead of every era.

oh... Alright... Makes sense, i though it was a bug! (especially since discription of civilization in wiki still say every era)

Thanks for clearing this up

 

[Gokudo01]

oh... Alright... Makes sense, i though it was a bug! (especially since discription of civilization in wiki still say every era)

Thanks for clearing this up

but you get 2 free policies when you pick an ideology.

All in all it's an early game nerf.

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

I'm going to attempt to explain the problem with Poland's UA, in a way that explains why Poland isn't just bland and uninteresting, but disrupts the very foundations of this game--strategy.

Civilization 5 is a strategy video game, but it is unique in that each playable civilization is different with unique and synergizing features that encourage and reward a unique strategy.
Some people have tried to paint Poland as a "beginner's civ." That Poland is a good starting place for players new to Vox Populi. But if someone is new to Vox Populi, shouldn't they just play on a lower difficulty? Why shouldn't the social policy boost simply be something given on settler difficulty? Why does it have to be a civ?
This also implies that Poland is a crutch civ--and in that case, does that mean Poland shouldn't be allowed to be randomly selected by the AI in singleplayer? What about multiplayer? After all, if everybody is supposed to be on the same difficulty level and every civ is supposed to be balanced, is it fair to be forced to play against a crutch civ? To potentially lose to someone, not because they are better than you, but simply because they are playing a better civ?
You may counter this by saying that Poland is weaker than other civs--that it's strength is given by its flexibility: this is true. There's nothing wrong with a civ being flexible; but Poland is fundamentally broken because its flexibility is UNEARNED. Allow me to contrast Poland with my current favorite civ: Carthage.

Carthage is an incredibly flexible civ--if you play them right. Carthage's flexibility comes from their riches. But their riches do not come from thin air, they are granted by settling cities. Carthage gets a free lighthouse in every naval city, which rewards coastal settling and saves you maintenance. Carthage also gets a trade route buff and a unique wonder which further buffs trading. You can say everybody builds trade units (I disagree, for warmonger civs, trade is a much lower priority as trade units aren't often worth the production as they will simply get raided in the next war), but this fundamentally changes how I play the game. The trade route bonus makes me much more reliant on trade partners. It makes me lean towards avoiding war with trade partners.
"But," you're probably asking, "everybody avoids war with trading partners. So, Carthage doesn't change your strategy." Wrong. I don't generally avoid war with trading partners to the same extent of Carthage:

While I was reading this thread, I realized a fundamental problem with people's understanding of Civilization balance. Somebody in this thread earlier mentioned how Zulu could be considered "flexible," as the gold maintenance saved could be used to maintain a cheaper defensive army and the money invested elsewhere. Everybody compares a civ's unique features to a blank, vanilla civ without any unique features (I like to call them "city-state civs"). But this is wrong. Because, in Civilization 5, you are not playing against city-state civs, you are playing against other civs with other unique features. So you're not playing a civ just for passive bonuses, you are constantly trying to maximize the bonuses from your unique features, because that's what everybody else is doing.
So, if I fail to utilize Carthage's trading bonuses to its fullest extent, I will not be punished by some in-game feature, I will be punished by other players/AIs, who are better and more intelligently using their civs unique features to get ahead. How do I maximize Poland's unique features? At most, I might select a different tech to get to the next era faster and I get a better bonus from horses, so I am more inclined to settle near horses. But... that's it. Poland's flexibility is otherwise granted for free.

Let's summarize: Carthage is a wide naval civ that more strongly rewards trading. Poland is a flexible civ that can pursue any general strategy. Perhaps you've already realized the problem.
If I wanted to counter Carthage, I might avoid settling naval cities, unless I'm confident in the production of my naval cities to outproduce Carthaginian navies or perhaps I will build an army to target Dido's Achilles Heel. If Carthage begins to get too wealthy/powerful, I might declare war on them and raid their trade routes to prevent snowballing. Because you're not just trying to best use your own civ's unique features, you are trying to counter other civs' unique features. You have the goal of attempting to outplay other players/AIs and undermine their civ's bonuses. This is a strategy game and there can only be one winner.
But, how do I counter Poland? Whenever I play against Poland, the most I can do is check up on their social policies to get a VERY VAGUE feeling about what strategy they're pursuing (which I already do with other civs) and I am inclined to steal horses from them so they cannot use their UB and UU.

Poland being vanilla without any unique strategy doesn't just steal the opportunity of a unique experience from those who play it, it STEALS the depth of strategizing in a STRATEGY GAME from other players. In that regard, Poland's UA is completely broken by its very concept and is ANTI-STRATEGY. It is not fit in a strategy game like Civilization 5.

 

[crdvis16]

I agree that Poland is one of the less interesting civs to play, though I did find a recent game as them more enjoyable than I expected. It's true that their bonuses largely occur by doing things any civ would naturally do so the learning curve for Poland is not very steep (hence the beginner friendly vibe). I could see the case being made that Poland might be overpowered at low difficulty/skill levels because they don't require as much strategy to take advantage of their bonuses so there is less chance of newer players making mistakes with them. It's probably difficult to make all civs balanced at all difficulty levels. Overall I don't think Poland is so out of line to need a change- I'd probably prefer a change just for the sake of making them more interesting. I'm not sure there is much appetite from the dev team to make big changes to civs at this point, though.

 

[Gazebo]

Poland is fine. I never see Poland run away at any difficulty. And there is strategy for Poland, he can use his policy bumps to either delay culture buildings and take the lead in war or science, or he can double down on culture and get a strong ideology first. It’s fine. Not all civs need to win prizes for design.

G

 

[CrazyG]

I don't think Poland's design is so heavily flawed.

I really disagree with people advocating Poland as so flexible though. I've tried taking authority and I was just really disappointed. The other warmonger UAs are much stronger than having an extra 2 policies. The uniques are actually very slow to take effect which don't support aggression very well. Tradition is alright but I think progress is what really shines. Late game there are a lot of unfair things you can do by being so far ahead in ideologies.

 

[tu_79]

Poland best bet is a cultural victory, since the worst part of it is waiting for the two level 3 ideological tenets. But. Had Poland a truly cultural civ in the game like Brazil, influencing everyone is not guaranteed.
Its war kit is nothing special (guaranteed mounted units, and some secondary features).

I still think it's ideal for easing the learning curve, with less mechanics to care about and granted mounted units, while it does not make it stronger.

 

[Bhawb]

Haven't played Poland in a while, but I usually played them as Science/Diplo that goes super aggressive with their UU to secure a bunch of vassals/cities, or if I'm feeling up to it they can make a solid run at Domination with UU into Authority. They are relatively flexible as far as win condition but your early choices not so much because you really want Progress.

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

I never stated Poland was overpowered. I stated their design was anti-strategy and not just boring for some to play as, but boring to play against. I was trying to get the point across that a civ with guaranteed flexible bonuses that are given without rewarding any strategy at all is just lazy design and anti-strategy. I understand the view that "if you don't like Poland, don't play it," but the problem is even being put in a game with Poland can ruin it as Poland takes away the depth of counter-strategy by other players.

Poland is fine. I never see Poland run away at any difficulty. And there is strategy for Poland, he can use his policy bumps to either delay culture buildings and take the lead in war or science, or he can double down on culture and get a strong ideology first. It’s fine. Not all civs need to win prizes for design.

G

No. I never said Poland was overpowered. You didn't read what I type. I didn't state their policy bonus was broken, I'm saying that the lack of strategy for getting their flexible bonuses takes away the strategy from not just the person playing Poland, but also the depth of counter-strategy by other players.

 

[chicorbeef]

I think you're trying to argue that any civ's UA can be countered but it's a bit ridiculous to expect that you'll always be prepared to shut down any civ's UA, no? You can't always deal with a civ's UA but you can still deal with Poland in a game and that's what actually matters to me.

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

Yes, I did state in my original post that there are some limited ways to counter Poland. However, I was trying to argue that Poland lacked any specific or even vague strategy; this means that Poland steals the depth of counter-strategy. You can still counter Poland like you can counter any “city-state civ,” but it is very limited and lacks the depth of other civs.

 

[chicorbeef]

Yes, I did state in my original post that there are some limited ways to counter Poland. However, I was trying to argue that Poland lacked any specific or even vague strategy; this means that Poland steals the depth of counter-strategy. You can still counter Poland like you can counter any “city-state civ,” but it is very limited and lacks the depth of other civs.

This is fine to me. If Poland goes Statecraft, and you beat them at the CS game, you've countered them. If Poland goes Progress and you lock them into a tiny corner of the world, you've countered them. If Poland goes Tradition + Artistry but you steal the good wonders, you've countered them. Just because Poland doesn't have a strategy at the very start of the game doesn't mean that you can't actually counter them in game. Poland's strategy will just take shape throughout the game.

Also not every UA is easily counterable. How do you counter England's UA for example? Or Korea's?

 

[Bhawb]

The majority of civs in the game can't be directly countered, and even many of those "direct" counters are extremely niche. Most civs with counterable components are also warmongering civs with aggressive features, and you counter them by not losing units/cities.

Sure Poland doesn't have the most complex play pattern, but it isn't much worse than many other civs. You picked out one of the more unique civs to compare them against, but they're literally cultural Ethiopia. I enjoy Poland because Winged Hussars are hilarious (as are their subsequent upgrades) and unlocking your Ideology first enables some interesting timings.

 

[Gazebo]

I never stated Poland was overpowered. I stated their design was anti-strategy and not just boring for some to play as, but boring to play against. I was trying to get the point across that a civ with guaranteed flexible bonuses that are given without rewarding any strategy at all is just lazy design and anti-strategy. I understand the view that "if you don't like Poland, don't play it," but the problem is even being put in a game with Poland can ruin it as Poland takes away the depth of counter-strategy by other players.

No. I never said Poland was overpowered. You didn't read what I type. I didn't state their policy bonus was broken, I'm saying that the lack of strategy for getting their flexible bonuses takes away the strategy from not just the person playing Poland, but also the depth of counter-strategy by other players.

I know one good counter-strategy against Poland. It involves guns and tanks and other fun things.

G

 

[CrazyG]

Poland is a weird civ, and frankly I think Poland is hard to play well. He has a very weak early game and a hard time getting a religion. Mid game is strong, especially in terms of military, but exactly how to benefit from that isn't obvious, overall he is a mediocre warmonger. Late game he has strong social policies, but not strong culture meaning tourism isn't boosted. His Unique Ability makes grabbing certain wonders easier, and changing your tech order affects your build order a lot.

Yes, I did state in my original post that there are some limited ways to counter Poland. However, I was trying to argue that Poland lacked any specific or even vague strategy; this means that Poland steals the depth of counter-strategy. You can still counter Poland like you can counter any “city-state civ,” but it is very limited and lacks the depth of other civs.

You have at least as much counterplay to Poland as you do to Korea or Arabia or Maya or a ton of other civs. Generally you "counter" other civs by either killing them or winning the game first (how refusing to settle coastal cities "counters" Carthage is beyond me). Both strategies work fine against Poland.

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

This is fine to me. If Poland goes Statecraft, and you beat them at the CS game, you've countered them. If Poland goes Progress and you lock them into a tiny corner of the world, you've countered them. If Poland goes Tradition + Artistry but you steal the good wonders, you've countered them. Just because Poland doesn't have a strategy at the very start of the game doesn't mean that you can't actually counter them in game. Poland's strategy will just take shape throughout the game.

I know one good counter-strategy against Poland. It involves guns and tanks and other fun things.

"You can still counter Poland like you can counter any “city-state civ,” but it is very limited and lacks the depth of other civs."

Also not every UA is easily counterable. How do you counter England's UA for example? Or Korea's?

Regarding England, they're UA is reliant on spying, meaning that if I can prevent them from finding my capital (spamming out cities to completely surround my capital, refusing to accept embassy, etc.), they're ability is immediately crippled. Along with that, if they do find my capital, and I'm in singleplayer, I can just ask them not to spy on me. That's not even a reasonable comparison for Poland, as Poland is flexible and can do literally any strategy and their UA would always be giving them maximized benefits. What I mean by that, is that if I wanted to maximize Poland's UA bonus, I could pursue any strategy and all I would have to do is not screw up to receive my maximum bonus. There is no depth in their UA. On the other hand, England's UA encourages a navy, exploration, and diplomacy, but yet its bonuses are limited only to spying and navy. If I wanted to maximize England's potential, I would want to focus on navy as much as possible over other military branches as that is what is most efficient for me. Regarding Korea, their UA is clearly geared towards a tall scientific game, meaning, if I'm playing against Korea and also pursuing a scientific victory, it is in my interest to outproduce their military and defeat them militarily. If I wanted to maximize Korea's potential, I would play tall and never play wide.

 

[CrazyG]

and I'm in singleplayer, I can just ask them not to spy on me

How experienced with the mod are you?

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

How experienced with the mod are you?

If the AI breaks their promise and I catch them, I've still hurt them by damaging their diplomatic relations with other civs.

 

[CrazyG]

If the AI breaks their promise and I catch them, I've still hurt them by damaging their diplomatic relations with other civs.

That doesn't work for spying promises.

Your mistaking no obvious direction for a total lack of direction. Poland had a lot of challenges that need to be resolved as you play. Progress seems to be what the community agrees is best, but why? Its not obvious, and that's beautiful. I find this sort of puzzle so much more intriguing than civ's who so clearly push you towards war or great people without nuance. Playing on the right difficulty, you can't just sit on your thumbs and expect Poland's free policies to give you the win.

I can also assure you from experience that Polish peaceful playing falls short. But we don't like authority and we favor progress, so when do you transition to aggression? The ducal stable is a bad unique building if you aren't doing some aggression. If I'm playing peacefully, Hussars will become irrelevant before I even have the tech (in Renaissance, I must make a choice in tech, high or low, to get my free policy). Peaceful Poland is really weak, your toolkit pushes you to be aggressive but not aggressive early on. You also have to find a way for that aggression to be valuable. Without Authority, or bonuses such as what Japan or France have, its not obvious what aggression gains you.

Poland cannot just do literally anything and expect to do well, a lot of options available are bad. Rather than having a sign, like Korea, which screams at you to do X,Y, and Z, the best choices for Poland are a mystery. I actually like playing a civ whose win condition changes game to game. He has literally zero ancient era bonuses, this presents a huge weakness.

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

That doesn't work for spying promises.

You replied to literally one specific part of my post just so you could say that "Gotcha!" moment.

we favor progress

I might be relying on outdated experience but isn't Poland also good at Tradition? And what about ideologies? This isn't an argument btw, I'm just asking a question.

He has literally zero ancient era bonuses, this presents a huge weakness.

I never stated Poland was overpowered. In fact, I stated the opposite in my first post. My problem was free, unearned flexibility, which takes out a lot of the game's depth.
Everybody so far in this thread who supports Poland's current design is, rather contradictory, either saying that Poland is weak or that Poland is flexible and essentially a crutch for new players. So it's clear Poland still needs a design change and the purpose of the thread still stands.