Poll: Which Civilizations are least competitive in your games?

[Txurce]

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


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.

Yes, it's unfortunate, but early on if I find a camp or two with settlers in them, I know the game has been radically redirected. I choose to look at it as "history," but of course it makes the game less competitive.

 

[mitsho]

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

Gold works differently than other yields in that you need to retain a constant level of it (for upkeep etc.) while you accumulate culture, science and production to spend them on something. The primary reason of gold is to keep something. (there's also happiness that works similarily, but it's not really a yield).

So it's fine if Merchants are less valuable than other specialists. I use them mostly in situations where I desperately need gold, i.e. when conquering large cities in the early game, at the beginning of Advanced Starts or to quickly get back to that crucial "opportunity minimum gold cost" level. Additionally, the Great Merchant is a very valuable specialist so it may make sense some times to run Merchants for one.
So I don't see the need to buff them even more, as they are still comparatively better as Thal pointed out

 

[albie_123]

Merchants, to me, are the 'fallback' specialist. I use them when all the other specialist slots are full. Frankly, I don't think that's a negative: Gold is something that you don't ever immediately prioritize (Except for lategame diplomatic victories) but you always want there in case.

 

[gunnergoz]

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


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.

Maybe the solution is to give settlers a significant defense on their own? If they can survive in hostile territory, we are more likely to see AI cities crop up. And if the AI is spamming settlers, that can be nerfed back once settlers are no longer being captured so quickly.

 

[Thalassicus]

I once considered doing that, but it has drawbacks. If we give settlers say... 6... that would help them in the early game, but they'd be more vulnerable in the late game, since we could not stack them with a military unit for defense and units of later eras would one-shot them.

 

[albie_123]

I think protecting settlers in the earlygame is worth making them more vulnerable in the lategame.

 

[Txurce]

I am strongly against this idea. The AI does escort settlers some of the time - what happens to that programming? And of course it makes the game even easier for humans, who really wouldn't need to escort. What's the point of changing something as "core" as civilian units? How many times have people had an issue in these forums about how quickly the AI expands?

I don't think overall AI expansion is being meaningfully affected by the occasional barb capture of a settler. But if the number of settler captures has gone up, then it would seem to make more sense to figure out why that is happening.

 

[albie_123]

My comment was made only in the recent situation where it seems EVERY settler of the AI has fallen to barbarians, but I suspect this is another issue from a bug or merely bad luck in my games. In previous versions I agree with Txurce.

 

[Txurce]

My comment was made only in the recent situation where it seems EVERY settler of the AI has fallen to barbarians, but I suspect this is another issue from a bug or merely bad luck in my games.

I agree, and we probably also agree it's not likely to be bad luck, given the recent spate of reports. I've seen it more often recently as well, although not in my current game.

 

[Roma Victa]

The AI might be losing more settlers now due to a lot of barbs having +1 movement on rough/desert terrain. Not that I'm complaining, I actually like the barb buffs. It makes them a bit more of a threat to deal with. The apparent increase in settler loss is just an unintended consequence.

Lately, I've been using the world editor mod to give a settler to AI civs that are really struggling. That isn't a long term solution, but it is a decent quick fix.

Maybe giving AI settlers the increased vision range promotion would help them avoid barbs.

 

[mitsho]

What if Settlers would receive the the promotion of the Inca Slinger, giving them a slight chance of survival without giving them strengths? But probably the Barbarians would just take the settler on the next turn...

 

[Txurce]

Would the AI stop building settlers if one or two are captured? I wouldn't think so, but it's not like barb caps have half a dozen settlers inside. In fact, I don't remember seeing even just two in one camp. We shouldn't conflate the occasional settler picked off by the AI with the as yet unconfirmed possibility that some AI civs may now be building less settlers. (My current game, and Seek's last one, seemed to have an acceptable total city number.)

 

[wobuffet]

Maybe giving AI settlers the increased vision range promotion would help them avoid barbs.

What if Settlers would receive the the promotion of the Inca Slinger, giving them a slight chance of survival without giving them strengths? But probably the Barbarians would just take the settler on the next turn...

I like both these ideas. Or simply give 3 Movement to all Civilian units from the start...

 

[albie_123]

I think giving them the Slinger promotion would be good, if that works for units without strength. I don't so much like giving them 3 from the beginning, though.

 

[Txurce]

In my just-completed v149 game, the map wound up as clogged with cities as it usually is. I don't see how this is possible if there is an AI settling problem.

More entertainingly, I had Artists to spare as the Aztecs going for a Science victory, and wound up realizing I could encircle Moscow with a culture bomb. I did, and had a nice laugh about it back in Tenochtitlan.

 

[Seek]

I was testing the Great Works mod in my 149 game and nearly circled Tokyo with one-tile culture-bombs! (I really hope it will be integrated init into VEM - it makes getting GArtists way more fun.)

 

[Thalassicus]

I was trying to remember the name of that mod earlier this week - thank you.

 

[Seek]

Sure! I changed it a bit, to: 250 + 150/era, the culture exponent in VEM to 2.3, and the culture-bomb radius to 1 tile. I had around six culture-bombs in my three city game and finished at t228, having just gotten into Modern and built SOH (I'd gotten the Oracle as well) so it might be a little too much, but it felt about right with those numbers (I think lowering the base might be the best way to go).

 

[albie_123]

Agree with Seek on the changes - if that's still too powerful, then we can change it later.

Looking forward to the addition.

 

[gdwitt]

The best civs for the human may not be the best for the AI. I think the Jelling Stones should be like a buffed dojo with all units surrounding for x turns receiving a promotion.
It may be wise to make the beserkers swordsmen instead of longswordsmen.

The dojo is very intersesting for a human interested in micromanaging units in an out of them for promotion buffs.

Mongolia requires considerable finesse to play and is quite enjoyable.

England does well if you understand how to use the ships in city conquest and harrassment.

I don't play them because I dislike the bonus to conquer CS. I never conquer CS unless they are persistent and I'm stuck right next to them on an island or something.

I don't think we need to make these civs more AI friendly. They provide unique challenges to us players that the easy civs don't.