Poll: Which Civilizations are least competitive in your games?

[mitsho]

Really difficult poll to answer.

And again, I keep repeating myself, I always cringe when we have to lose a flavourful (but not necessarily gameplay prone) aspect of a civ. It alwas seems that we keep on making the early eras more complex and lose out in the latter ones (Dojo for Zero, Jelling Stones for Norwegian Ski Infantry). So I'd rather have 3 uniques per civ so that we can keep those we regard as weak (naval and air units, modern units and buildings) and still have competitive civs.

Modmod anyone?

EDIT: @Thal I like that you like the Maidan as a Garden Replacement for Persia, the effects are of course secondary since a Garden/City Square can really do anything you want... as for the Forum for Rome, I just don't really see the synergies for Rome... Is an effect like this possible: Upon completing XY, the city receives 100 Great Something points?

 

[jacktannery]

In my games, all the military civs fare very badly. This is because the military AI cannot compete against the human, also they seem to only very rarely take each other's cities, even when they could easily do so.

The super-over-promoted military units in the last few versions of VEM might have helped here, but it seems it was a bug and not intended - oh well; this might have been interesting, particularly if the military civs that do badly in this poll were the ones that had these super-promoted units.

The main thing that needs to happen is the AI of these military civs needs to be told to try and conquer the world from the start of the game. Conquer and Raze. No survivors. As soon as their UU era comes up, they should go to war with the closest neighbour and demolish all the cities - and never stop.

Another factor in why these civs consistantly do badly in my games is a BUG in the diplomacy. On the trade screen you can ask that one of these military civs go to war with another civilisation for 30 gold pieces (one-off, not per turn). They never refuse, and they always say 'thank you for your generous offer...' This is silly. Also, when they do go to war in this manner, they never actually do anything or send any units into battle. It just destroys all their alliances.

 

[Txurce]

The super-over-promoted military units in the last few versions of VEM might have helped here, but it seems it was a bug and not intended - oh well; this might have been interesting, particularly if the military civs that do badly in this poll were the ones that had these super-promoted units.

The main thing that needs to happen is the AI of these military civs needs to be told to try and conquer the world from the start of the game. Conquer and Raze. No survivors. As soon as their UU era comes up, they should go to war with the closest neighbour and demolish all the cities - and never stop.

I think Thal is still working on finding the right balance for promotions.

I agree that these civs benefit from doing well early, even though probably all of them can't have an early UU.

Another factor in why these civs consistantly do badly in my games is a BUG in the diplomacy. On the trade screen you can ask that one of these military civs go to war with another civilisation for 30 gold pieces (one-off, not per turn). They never refuse, and they always say 'thank you for your generous offer...' This is silly. Also, when they do go to war in this manner, they never actually do anything or send any units into battle. It just destroys all their alliances.

This is definitely an exploit that may actually be a bug. Forget 30 pieces - if you offer them something, they sometimes come back with an even worse (for them) deal. However, in my games they take these wars about as seriously as they do others. If their attitudes vary, it may be whether or not it's a "first war" or not.

 

[Seek]

This is the hard way to go at it, but the most faithful. If you think about it, they're almost mirror images, except the Danes' embarkation UA makes them more interesting.

Presumably Japan's present trait was based on their soldiers' quasi-suicidal approach in WW2. Would Morale for all units or Blitz for all melee units be enough?

Japan doesn't necessarily need a militaristic UA - outside of a brief period from the late 19th through the early 20th century (after the Meiji Restoration) Japan never expanded militarily, but fought internally and defended against the Mongols and, later, the Americans. There is much in their culture that we could draw from that has nothing to do with combat. I'll try to come up with ideas later.

Ha, you read my mind, I'm actually making this right now! (Although I called it a Ger )

Looks great, albie!

... as for the Forum for Rome, I just don't really see the synergies for Rome... Is an effect like this possible: Upon completing XY, the city receives 100 Great Something points?

Well, the UA is called "The Glory of Rome" - I think a UB (doesn't have to be the Forum) that gives a bonus to the capital while the UA gives a bonus to satellites via roads has a lot of synergy. That being said, yours is an interesting idea, can you flesh it out a bit more?

Another factor in why these civs consistantly do badly in my games is a BUG in the diplomacy. On the trade screen you can ask that one of these military civs go to war with another civilisation for 30 gold pieces (one-off, not per turn). They never refuse, and they always say 'thank you for your generous offer...' This is silly. Also, when they do go to war in this manner, they never actually do anything or send any units into battle. It just destroys all their alliances.

In my experience you don't need to give them any gold at all, and they still thank you!

@Txurce, I'm quite sure this is a bug, probably from making militaristic AIs more willing/always planning to war. It was brought up in the Bugs forum a while back but I can't find it - or find out if Thal addressed it.

 

[Camikaze]

I voted for the Mongols, Denmark, Aztecs and Songhai. Mongolia is a clear #1 for me, Denmark a clear #2. I would have added Spain and Rome as well, but pressed "Enter" too quickly. I also missed an "r" in "Germany." (Mods: any help here?)

Moderator Action: Fixed (Germany, and I added a vote to the tally for Rome and Spain). In future, please feel free to use the report feature to get moderator attention. I only stumbled across this by chance, so if there's something you need us for, reporting ensures we see it.

 

[albie_123]

I think changing Japan to a non-militaristic civ with a non-militaristic UA is quite a big move. They have always been 'the' military civ, really. (Excluding Mongolia, who only came in later.)

I'm not necessarily saying it's a BAD move, just pointing out that it would be a big one.

 

[Txurce]

They are also performing credibly now.

 

[mitsho]

Well, the UA is called "The Glory of Rome" - I think a UB (doesn't have to be the Forum) that gives a bonus to the capital while the UA gives a bonus to satellites via roads has a lot of synergy. That being said, yours is an interesting idea, can you flesh it out a bit more?

Yes, but is it worth replacing a unique unit with a rather bland unique building with a passive bonus? The only specialists Rome is probably going to run are probably Merchants as conquering is costly. That's why I - rather than having a percentage bonus - was proposing that building a forum gives you +50 (~20 turns of applying one specialist) points towards one Great Specialist (either random or only Merchants?), either in the capital or just in that city. Probably not doable though...

 

[Seek]

@Txurce, albie: I'm not saying we should make Japan non-militaristic, I'm just throwing the idea out there!

@mitsho: We're discussing the same civ in two different threads, so I've replied to both here in the interest of keeping it concise.

The +1 gold on roads only applies if you work them so it doesn't allow limitless road spamming. Quite the opposite, it gives you the ability to have a few more roads than other civs.

At the beginning of the game this is true, but once the late game is in progress and cities start really growing, it would be bad play *not* to spam roads everywhere your citizens are working, which will be many, many tiles. Moreover, it could be very feasible to road every tile and still make a profit, even if not all tiles are worked, because the gold earned from roads are subject to multipliers. Admittedly, the production on roads idea is not too dissimilar, but at least there is the upkeep cost to hopefully keep the number of roads in check. Either is probably too powerful, anyway.

Yes, but is it worth replacing a unique unit with a rather bland unique building with a passive bonus? The only specialists Rome is probably going to run are probably Merchants as conquering is costly. That's why I - rather than having a percentage bonus - was proposing that building a forum gives you +50 (~20 turns of applying one specialist) points towards one Great Specialist (either random or only Merchants?), either in the capital or just in that city. Probably not doable though...

Both the Ballista and Rome's UA are extremely bland to me - the Ballista has a slight strength boost, and the UA is terribly passive - I've forgotten it even existed while playing Rome before! The Forum as described (+3 gold and +1culture in capital) is a very powerful economic building, which could help field large armies because the gold would go through modifiers in the capital (whereas if the gold was just on the building like normal, infrastructure would be required). There is also no other building with a similar mechanic in vanilla or VEM. Seems more exciting to me, but I can appreciate that it's not a whole lot less passive than the current UA.

The issue I have with your suggestion for a GP boost is that I don't associate Rome with Great People or merchants, particularly; I see them as builders and conquerors. I could see some aspect of the UA giving GE points, however. So here's another idea: Each connected city gets a free Engineer slot and a one-time boost in GE points. (Each could come from the UB or UA, whatever's deemed more apt.)

But again, just throwing ideas out there!

 

[mitsho]

That effect question was not necessarily for Rome, I was just interested if it were possible. It can be applied to various civs and admittedly, the idea didn't come for Rome nor from it, I just happened to add it after a post about Rome ;-)

Good call on the roads gold modifier. Though I'm not very clear on why we want to change Rome atm and to what end?

 

[Thalassicus]

It always seems that we keep on making the early eras more complex and lose out in the latter ones (Dojo for Zero, Jelling Stones for Norwegian Ski Infantry).

The Dojo and Jelling Stones are available in later eras.

I described earlier why making changes to the high-ranking AIs from this poll would be inadvisable:

About a year ago Firaxis blocked AIs from attacking citystates in the early game. Removing that block would dramatically improve AI-Mongolia (and all other militaristic AIs), but we can't do that with our current modding tools. Likewise, Denmark and England are the two heavily naval civs. The AI doesn't perform well at naval combat, and we can't do much about it.

 

[Txurce]

I don't want to change Mongolia. They scored well in the favorite leader poll, and as I pointed out earlier the only reason the Mongolian AI does poorly is Firaxis blocks AIs from attacking citystates in the early game.

I was pretty sure you wouldn't want to change Mongolia. But saying the only reason they do poorly is (x) doesn't mean they don't do poorly, and that an improvement isn't feasible.

 

[Thalassicus]

Other than allowing AIs to attack citystates again, the alternative is to replace Mongolia's citystate-attack bonus. It's the only bonus of its kind in the game, so I think doing that might make Mongolia less interesting for human players.

 

[Txurce]

The only other way to improve Mongolia's ranking in this poll is to replace the trait. It's the only bonus of its kind in the game, so it would probably make Mongolia less fun for human players.

I'm sure it would make it less fun for the players who enjoy using it. It stood out, though, in that there is also a significant group of players who don't use it, and that it's the poorest performer for the AI.

To be clear, I don't mind if we wind up with an AI dog or two (like Mongolia), since some people do really enjoy them. As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't think we have any major concerns regarding Leaders; nobody has complained for lack of choice. But if we do tinker with the civs, then the three questions answered in polls - what civs are used a lot, what civs aren't, and which civs do poorly for the AI - give you more knowledge of what you're affecting when you alter civs.

 

[Gamewizard]

In my current 147.2 game, Japan took out America very early, on the other continent in my game. Once I finally swam over to see who was the lucky victor (since I couldn't tell at the time) I saw that Japan had atleast 4 swordsmen with blitz and the demographics showed his military at twice the strength of mine, at a time when I thought my Mohawk army was pretty bad-ass.

 

[Txurce]

In my current 147.2 game, Japan took out America very early, on the other continent in my game. Once I finally swam over to see who was the lucky victor (since I couldn't tell at the time) I saw that Japan had atleast 4 swordsmen with blitz and the demographics showed his military at twice the strength of mine, at a time when I thought my Mohawk army was pretty bad-ass.

That's how Japan is doing in my games these days as well. Promoted units that fight at full strength until they do are a force to be reckoned with. It's a good argument for keeping the promotions pumped up to some degree.

 

[Zaldron]

Yes, but is it worth replacing a unique unit with a rather bland unique building with a passive bonus? The only specialists Rome is probably going to run are probably Merchants as conquering is costly. That's why I - rather than having a percentage bonus - was proposing that building a forum gives you +50 (~20 turns of applying one specialist) points towards one Great Specialist (either random or only Merchants?), either in the capital or just in that city. Probably not doable though...

Does anyone actually run merchants though? I've always viewed them as by far the weakest specialist, with engineers being the strongest.

 

[wobuffet]

In spite of yield equality goals, I'd like to see Merchants bumped up to 4 each in light of the recent decentralization of gold. Building maintenance from Medieval Era onward could be increased to compensate.

 

[gunnergoz]

I'm playing a Terra map on King as Spain using v148.6 and despite fighting 3 wars (I was DOW'd by 2 other countries each time, for expanding too much, apparently) my score is in the mid 500's while everyone else is in the 200's at best. One of the worst showings is England, which has yet to expand past London even though there is plenty of land and luxury items within easy reach. I have deliberately left the land open to see what it would do and Elizabeth sits there passively. That is just plain not right. What can be done to goose Britannia?

 

[Thalassicus]

Scientists, engineers, and artists were each nerfed by 50%, equivalent to raising Merchants from 3 to 6.

One of the worst showings is England, which has yet to expand past London even though there is plenty of land and luxury items within easy reach.

This is usually because the AI does not escort their settlers with military units. I provide AIs with a 60% bonus vs barbarians to try and help them settle cities, but it has unpredictable success.