Poland

[Gazebo]

Can you buff Spain's UA tho? It's pretty terrible yield wise. IMHO it could get +Food in the capital on top of Faith to represent the food types taken from America by the Spanish to be eaten/sold/grown in Europe. Would make the civ less one-dimensional (only faith/gold yields affected in anything) and it'd additionally synergise well with Mission.

Buffs/debuffs to existing numbers are definitely possible – I'm just not doing any more rewrites.

G

 

[Gazebo]

... Human is a race. Besides, every RPG treats classes/races differently, I'm talking about a specific game design philosophy for classes.

"Functons" is a terrible argument for something. The base game happiness system "functioned".

This is the balance patch. Why would you not change it? It's a terrible UA and the arguments in favor of it fall short. Pretty much every argument I see supports it being "good" (which is, by the way, one of my points), not being "well designed and balanceable".

Class/race – all the same to an imperial historian.

People like Poland's UA, you excepted. I don't see it is as flawed. <shrug> Just because it is a balance patch does not mean I have to change everything for the sake of change.

G

 

[Wodhann]

Class/race &#8211; all the same to an imperial historian.

People like Poland's UA, you excepted. I don't see it is as flawed. <shrug> Just because it is a balance patch does not mean I have to change everything for the sake of change.

If I wanted everything changed for the sake of change, I would pull up a whole list of leader UAs. I'm not going at this just for the sake of perfectionism.

The reason I am going for Poland's is because it is basically unbalanceable. It is either too good, or too bland, because of its nature of being a 100% effortless UA.

You should really listen instead of putting that "lalala, not going to change it" mental block in your head. I'm not doing this because I have fun trying to convince you to change stuff, you know.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

because of its nature of being a 100% effortless UA.

The more rapidly you advance in techs, the sooner you get free policies. So there is definitely a goal which you should achieve in order to get the most of that UA.

You'll probably say that science is always number one priority, but if you're in war, or expanding, or pursuing other strategies, you can often find yourself between such decisions, where science isn't necessarily the best choice.

And as G said, earlier Ideology + easier Wonder accession among others is something that I wouldn't call boring.

 

[Wodhann]

The more rapidly you advance in techs, the sooner you get free policies. So there is definitely a goal which you should achieve in order to get the most of that UA.

Sure, but that goal is universally sought after, even when not 100% focusing on it.

You'll probably say that science is always number one priority, but if you're in war, or expanding, or pursuing other strategies, you can often find yourself between such decisions, where science isn't necessarily the best choice.

Science can be put aside for other priorities, but it is definatelly something every civ has to seek eventually. Tech is about the most universally important thing in the whole game.

And as G said, earlier Ideology + easier Wonder accession among others is something that I wouldn't call boring.

Boring =/= bad. Again, you guys just strengthen my point with this kind of argument.

 

[Gazebo]

Sure, but that goal is universally sought after, even when not 100% focusing on it.

Science can be put aside for other priorities, but it is definatelly something every civ has to seek eventually. Tech is about the most universally important thing in the whole game.

Boring =/= bad. Again, you guys just strengthen my point with this kind of argument.

You can't claim that every argument against you strengthens your argument. That's like playing the 'rubber band and glue' game as kids.

You've made some valid points in favor of changing it, others have made equally valuable arguments in favor of keeping it the same.

G

 

[Wodhann]

You can't claim that every argument against you strengthens your argument. That's like playing the 'rubber band and glue' game as kids.

The problem is people are trying to rebut my argument simply by stating how good the UA is. I know it is good, that's precisely my point. The UA is unbalanceable, therefore it will either be too good (as it is now), or too bland, because how interesting the UA is is dependant on how good (OP) it is. That's what I mean by them strengthening my point.

If people want to truly contradict my arguments, then telling me why it's a well designed UA is a better way to go. Not how "good" it is.

 

[Funak]

People like Poland's UA, you excepted.

I know you have access to information that I do not, but honestly could you share where you got this information from? I've heard people not disliking the Polish UA but I've never actually heard anyone liking it.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I like the current poland. The current UA is not the most interessting UA, but I greatly preffer it to the etiopian one
(In fact, I really don't like the free tech when adopting belief. I don't like bonuses that require a religion)
Poland is one of the few civs that does not force any specific gameplay : you don't have to play in a specific way to have the bonuses of your civ, so you're free to play the way you want.

Having some civs that have a special gameplay is good, but having few "generalist" civs make sens.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I also like current UA. It's not particularly broken, no, Korea's is stronger, fifty times more boring and Korea has a fairly superior UB and UU to boot (that's why it is currently the arguably best civ in the game).
Same with Brazil with it's being instainfluential with everyone you meet in Ancient that also gives you bonus Science/etc for trade routes on top of other bonuses I forgot.
Arabia's is in many cases superior too (if you go Tradition into Aesthetics then it is for sure, all those Events will give you more GPs than Maya, bonuses for spawning them and Tourism to improve TR).
Maya's UA is probably superior too, instaenhancement on a religion you're nearly guaranteed to get is pretty neat, that on top of other bonuses is great.

All of the civs above and pretty much in the game give you something you want by doing something you want (you always want to spawn GPs and reach the next era, you're just more enticed to do so as Arabia, you always want to reach Mathematics, you just typically rush it as Maya, etc.)

 

[Funak]

Just to clear things up:

Like &#8800; I think it is balanced and I think it works.

Like = I think it is a fun ability.


Enrico, I know that you have a lot of opinions on other civs and like to bring them up as examples, but other abilities being good have absolutely nothing to do with whether you like something or not, it only makes it sound like you don't understand the question.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Just to clear things up:

Like &#8800; I think it is balanced and I think it works.

Like = I think it is a fun ability.


Enrico, I know that you have a lot of opinions on other civs and like to bring them up as examples, but other abilities being good have absolutely nothing to do with whether you like something or not, it only makes it sound like you don't understand the question.

Why? Some things you may like or at least bear because you think they work and don't need any changes.

But if you insist, yes I do consider the UA more or less fun for its flexibility. Definitely more fun to play around with than the Portuguese UA for instance (it's incredibly boring, the rest of the civ compensates though). Definitely more fun than Zulu UA too and many other UAs. Flexibility may be a strength, yes, but it also is a source of enjoyment that may make you try out some tactics you wouldn't otherwise, making it fun.

 

[Funak]

Why? Some things you may like or at least bear because you think they work and don't need any changes.

Again, you can feel that something doesn't need changing without liking it. You also don't necessarily need to dislike something just because you don't like it. That's really where I think most people stand on the Poland question:
"Meh, who cares?"

But then again that's probably where most people stood on the Brazil UA question as well and it still got chopped, so what do I know?

 

[Moi Magnus]

I think most people stand on the Poland question:
"Meh, who cares?"

You're probably right on that point.

 

[Wodhann]

I'll flat out say, without much fear of being mistaken, that the reason people like Poland's UA is because it's good (and good means rewarding which means "feel good"), not because it's well designed.

Why? Well, let me ask you back this: If the UA said "Every new Era, gain 100 culture", would you like it? You would probably say it's terrible. Not just terrible in terms of balance, but terrible in terms of design.

Again, the UA is interesting only while it's OP. It's unbalanceable, due to it not being well designed.

 

[Gazebo]

I'll flat out say, without much fear of being mistaken, that the reason people like Poland's UA is because it's good (and good means rewarding which means "feel good"), not because it's well designed.

Why? Well, let me ask you back this: If the UA said "Every new Era, gain 100 culture", would you like it? You would probably say it's terrible. Not just terrible in terms of balance, but terrible in terms of design.

Again, the UA is interesting only while it's OP. It's unbalanceable, due to it not being well designed.

It is good...but it isn't OP by any means.

G

 

[Wodhann]

It is good...but it isn't OP by any means.

Admittedly I'm being kind of hyperbolic with the word OP.

What I mean is, it's a different kind of "good". It's too generally useful. It works for you no matter the scenario. A lot of civs are kind of dependant on the situation and on how feasible it is to get a certain victory type, but Poland's is just... good.

 

[Strigvir]

How about we settle this with a poll?
https://strawpoll.me/7390766
Repost to reddit and other places to get a bigger sample size.

For me, it's good enough. Not every UA should be about whacky bonuses in whacky circumstances. Besides, AI can't even into them to the same extent human could.

 

[Gazebo]

Admittedly I'm being kind of hyperbolic with the word OP.

What I mean is, it's a different kind of "good". It's too generally useful. It works for you no matter the scenario. A lot of civs are kind of dependant on the situation and on how feasible it is to get a certain victory type, but Poland's is just... good.

I just...I just don't know how to respond with anything other than "yes?"

So...yes?

Seems like a solid vote in favor of keeping it, then.

G

 

[Wodhann]

How about we settle this with a poll?
https://strawpoll.me/7390766
Repost to reddit and other places to get a bigger sample size.

For me, it's good enough. Not every UA should be about whacky bonuses in whacky circumstances. Besides, AI can't even into them to the same extent human could.

"Good" is the wrong question. This is a matter of design, not balance. Especially since the bad design means it's unbalanceable.