Poland

[CrazyG]

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

I'm just just trying to help man.

I might be relying on outdated experience but isn't Poland also good at Tradition?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.

Its alright but its a lot weaker than other civs. The weak early game makes things harder. The lack of faith and science makes things harder. The Ducal Stable does very little for a typical tradition empire, I skip stables as tradition pretty often. The Winged Hussar doesn't support defending yourself very well (compared to stuff like Camel Archers or H'wacha).

So on flexibility, you can play tradition Aztec. Its not illegal. You can play any civ with any social policy you want. The question isn't what can you do, the question what can you do and its actually strong. Flexibility would mean having more than one choice that works well. Poland is a good choice for newer players, because he doesn't push you in any one direction. People seem to feel free to try anything with Poland (which is good). In fact, I can't say for sure that authority Poland is weak, I just haven't found how to make it work yet. So many players, old and new, seem to think there is only one path in the game (I'm a warmonger, I pick authority, fealty, imperialism, autocracy every time). Poland doesn't have that, which is needed in the game.

As for counter-play, he has no ancient era bonuses. Kill him! He is overall a pretty crappy civ until ideologies, so kill him (or attack to weaken him) before then. He also doesn't directly buff any win condition, so as long as he doesn't run away with the game it pretty easy to just win before he does.

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

I'm just just trying to help man.

In retrospect, I'm sure you were. But, asking, "how new are you?" instead of just saying, "civs can break their promises," and "breaking a spying promise does not impact diplomatic relations" makes it sound like you were attacking me and not simply correcting my arguments. It sounded aggressive, but nonetheless, I apologize for accusing you of malice.

I still fundamentally disagree with Poland's UA, as it was obviously designed to be free flexibility on paper, even if that's not what happens in-game. However, I think we both can agree that Poland could definitely have a better UA and synergy with its UB and UU.

 

[CrazyG]

However, I think we both can agree that Poland could definitely have a better UA and synergy with its UB and UU.

Not really. I quite like Poland. Free social policies is interesting and iconic. I really enjoyed trying to solve Poland and see what actually works.

 

[Gazebo]

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.

Ahem. I literally said "Poland is fine." I didn't say it was a crutch, nor did I was it was weak. I said it presents some interesting crossroads on the war/peace spectrum, and can be played in quite a few ways. It is a wildcard civ, and there aren't too many that fall into that category. It isn't clear that Poland needs a design change - the civ, as noted, is fine. Not every civ needs to be jam-packed with special mechanics to present interesting choices.

G

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

I wasn't referring to you?

 

[Gazebo]

I wasn't referring to you?

“Everybody so far in this thread.”

“I wasn’t referring to you.”

Ok, bud.

G

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

You're the exception.

 

[chicorbeef]

"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."

City-states don't have policies. And policy counterplay has plenty of depth to me-how you deal with an Artistry civ is often different to dealing with a Fealty civ. You can't single out Poland's free policies (you can't single out most UAs realistically speaking). Like for example...

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

This is really reaching at straws here. This is on the same level of answer as "just kill Poland before Classical!". You generally do not have a lot of control on whether England can find you or not. It's extreme fringe scenarios where you meet England early on but can still hide from them.

As @CrazyG was pointing to, abilities that appear simple that are widely applicable can actually be a bit of a puzzle to use optimally. Poland is one of those civ's. I think it's fine.

 

[Favorius]

When Poland used to have free policy every new era, they used to be top contender. However this UA was putting them in great position when wonders changed to have policy requirements. So their ability is postponed to become mid game loaded. Nowadays I see Poland wiped out more often by their neighbours.

What about shifting Poland's free policies 1 era earlier, they would start with 1 free policy at ancient era? That would mitigate their lack of early bonus.

 

[crdvis16]

I'm one of the people that always thought Poland was bland but I don't even think it's worth making a change, especially when others think Poland is fine.

It kind of sounds like Hippie had one game where Poland snowballed for some reason and there was no way to stop him. The thing is, any civ can snowball out of control and if they snowball hard enough you're probably just SoL. I had a game not long ago where Ethiopia won on t275 or 285, which I honestly didn't think was possible. He was on another continent and by the time I realized I was in trouble I couldn't do anything about it, really. I've played enough VP to know that sometimes that just happens and it has more to do with perfect circumstances than with Ethiopia being un-fun or not having counter play available.

 

[Stalker0]

I think Poland is just fine.

 

[pineappledan]

Can’t say I have ever had a game where Poland has done much of note. I’m like:

But Casimir never obliges

 

[Rosaria's Sandwiches]

Yes, I don't really interact with Poland's UA directly. No, I don't mind that there is a Civ (Ethiopia being another) like that.

Unless I had a thing for Casimir and wanted him to play more interestingly, I don't see the problem with him; I just play another Civ as I find him not too exciting (though admittedly I have had fun with Poland before).

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I have never seen VP Casimir do well, too. He's at most the middle of the play, but usually dead or just in a bad spot. When I play him, I am always somewhat underwhelmed. I wouldn't call Poland a "noob" civ or one to start with, the civ is far too weak early where it matters, not compensating enough later and as such Poland being uncomplicated so new players can pick him doesn't make sense. A newbie should be playing something uncomplicated that's strong early game (ancient-classical era) but not weak mid-game so he survives the AI's more intelligent onslaught.

A newbie should not pick something that gets what is relatively unimpressive starting in classical era - I say unimpressive because almost every other civ with ancient era +Culture effectively gets a policy by then anyway. The other uniques of Poland do not compensate because they're weak and not early enough for a newbie to benefit, too : Stable requires RNG to be good (forces newbie to restart for many pastures or deal with a crappy building), Winged Hussar is late, overcomplicated and not strong, with it's unique promotion more often being a negative than a positive. Those components mean Casimir just won't work in n00b scrub's hands very well. The only other gain from the UA is renaissance, and that's pretty late.

The inexperienced VP player should pick China instead, you effectively get those free policies as well - less of them maybe by super late game, yes, but you get them early when they matter and it'll allow them to survive that early game. Easier to make settlers, early building that doesn't need RNG, far superior and earlier UU. There's other uncomplicated ones that just feel better and stronger to play. Arabia for tall, Carthage for almost anything wide if they just settle by the coast, or Inca if they want to reload for a good start for mountains instead of pastures, or Ethiopia, or Songhai for war/early game power, or maybe France.

In other words, I really don't feel Poland is a good newbie civ so it fails at what it's set to achieve. To be honest, I don't think it's the right civ for anyone. The civ is too weak early for a newbie with the bonuses being given too late and not substantial enough to carry them at the most important point in the game (early) where they need help the most, it's too boring and generic for someone experienced. I don't find it a strong civ, either.

 

[Gazebo]

I have never seen VP Casimir do well, too. He's at most the middle of the play, but usually dead or just in a bad spot. When I play him, I am always somewhat underwhelmed. I wouldn't call Poland a "noob" civ or one to start with, the civ is far too weak early where it matters, not compensating enough later and as such Poland being uncomplicated so new players can pick him doesn't make sense. A newbie should be playing something uncomplicated that's strong early game (ancient-classical era) but not weak mid-game so he survives the AI's more intelligent onslaught.

A newbie should not pick something that gets what is relatively unimpressive starting in classical era - I say unimpressive because almost every other civ with ancient era +Culture effectively gets a policy by then anyway. The other uniques of Poland do not compensate because they're weak and not early enough for a newbie to benefit, too : Stable requires RNG to be good (forces newbie to restart for many pastures or deal with a crappy building), Winged Hussar is late, overcomplicated and not strong, with it's unique promotion more often being a negative than a positive. Those components mean Casimir just won't work in n00b scrub's hands very well. The only other gain from the UA is renaissance, and that's pretty late.

The inexperienced VP player should pick China instead, you effectively get those free policies as well - less of them maybe by super late game, yes, but you get them early when they matter and it'll allow them to survive that early game. Easier to make settlers, early building that doesn't need RNG, far superior and earlier UU. There's other uncomplicated ones that just feel better and stronger to play. Arabia for tall, Carthage for almost anything wide if they just settle by the coast, or Inca if they want to reload for a good start for mountains instead of pastures, or Ethiopia, or Songhai for war/early game power, or maybe France.

In other words, I really don't feel Poland is a good newbie civ so it fails at what it's set to achieve. To be honest, I don't think it's the right civ for anyone. The civ is too weak early for a newbie with the bonuses being given too late and not substantial enough to carry them at the most important point in the game (early) where they need help the most, it's too boring and generic for someone experienced. I don't find it a strong civ, either.

I think the 'best noob civ' award goes to either China or Carthage, IMO.

G

 

[Txurce]

I think the 'best noob civ' award goes to either China or Carthage, IMO.

G

Yes, and probably Carthage first. China requires more thought to play, and Carthage at lower (noob) levels can parlay its UU far longer against the AI and especially CS.

 

[CrazyG]

I think the Polish unique ability could be "Get a free social policy every era except the Renaissance", and drop the ideology part. Its not exactly elegant, but the current version is pretty weak (I enjoy playing him though). Civs with strong culture, such as Brazil or China, can actually beat Poland pretty easily in social policies

 

[Dolen2]

First time playing Poland in VP, my impression was... "boring".
There are civs of this sort, those that don't require almost 0 skill and timing to make the best out of their UA, and sadly I felt Poland fell into this category.

Another is England just in case (just clicking buttons).

 

[randomnub]

I think the Polish unique ability could be "Get a free social policy every era except the Renaissance", and drop the ideology part. Its not exactly elegant, but the current version is pretty weak (I enjoy playing him though). Civs with strong culture, such as Brazil or China, can actually beat Poland pretty easily in social policies

I'd take the risk to overtune it and make it more elegant simply by stating "get a free social policy every era" Polish UU/UB come late and don't really carry the civ, with no other sources the gain of 2 (?) policies by Medieval/Industrial compared to now should be alright. I just don't like having a pretty blank civ until the huge ideology power spike. As of now when doing good they're usually 1 down or on par policy-wise with the top score AIs/player until renaissance, then maybe 1 ahead until they pick an ideology. 1-2 policies against a full UA, that probably already put the opponent in a better position for the first ~150 turns.

The idea of ducal stable actually spawning a real source of (2) horses (similar to how a Candi spawns spice plantations) next to the city sounds really fun to play against/with. It has the potential to alter the strategical monopoly balance, forces the player to actually improve/work a tile susceptible to pillage and makes Poland the best war target of Russia .

 

[Stalker0]

Just finished a game with Poland, still think they are perfectly fine. You get a nice push early with a policy, the ducal stable is a decent UB, and then you get a big boost when you hit Ideology (I think a lot of people don't wait until that point to get Poland's full power, that is a ton of free culture in the late game).

Its not the sexiest civ, but that's ok, because some people just want simple and stable. I wouldn't want that for every civ, but there's nothing wrong with having a few civs that just give a nice easy bonus.