Is there any way to reduce/remove the bonus that barb-turned-civs get after uniting? If I remember what I saw in the world builder correctly (and understood it properly), they get a 150 turn bonus or so of +50 military unit production. Is that right? It's been a while since I investigated, but it's been a thorn in my side for a while.
From a play experience, that bonus is very negative. On emperor it's hard enough to afford a decent military, and having a neighbor pop up that's technologically advanced and pumping out units non-stop is not enjoyable. And worse, it usually happens after investing a lot into building an invasion force meant/designed to take on barb cities, but as soon as you're ready they unite. If you choose to invade anyway, you're facing an endless tide of skirmishers keeping your army on "wait to heal". The AI isn't good at defeating your army, but it's suicidal and "we can build more" tactics are sure to prevent you from getting anything done. And if you change your mind on invading, then all the hammers and gold spent on training up your army were a waste, and you're now stuck paying the upkeep costs (or deleting the units).
I like the revolutions component, and barbarians uniting is a great feature. But they're getting way too many bonuses. I think they should be weaker and vulnerable, both from a realism perspective and a game design perspective. If I wanted more capable and sturdy civs in the game, I'd turn off revolutions and add more starting civs. United barbarians should pose more of a threat than just barbarians, for sure, but they shouldn't be as formidable as they are, and maybe not formidable at all.
Edit: Just noticed that the game has Pacal II The Sheild (603-683), though wikipedia attributes those years and titles to Pacal I with Pacal II being a later ruler in the 8th century.
From a play experience, that bonus is very negative. On emperor it's hard enough to afford a decent military, and having a neighbor pop up that's technologically advanced and pumping out units non-stop is not enjoyable. And worse, it usually happens after investing a lot into building an invasion force meant/designed to take on barb cities, but as soon as you're ready they unite. If you choose to invade anyway, you're facing an endless tide of skirmishers keeping your army on "wait to heal". The AI isn't good at defeating your army, but it's suicidal and "we can build more" tactics are sure to prevent you from getting anything done. And if you change your mind on invading, then all the hammers and gold spent on training up your army were a waste, and you're now stuck paying the upkeep costs (or deleting the units).
I like the revolutions component, and barbarians uniting is a great feature. But they're getting way too many bonuses. I think they should be weaker and vulnerable, both from a realism perspective and a game design perspective. If I wanted more capable and sturdy civs in the game, I'd turn off revolutions and add more starting civs. United barbarians should pose more of a threat than just barbarians, for sure, but they shouldn't be as formidable as they are, and maybe not formidable at all.
Edit: Just noticed that the game has Pacal II The Sheild (603-683), though wikipedia attributes those years and titles to Pacal I with Pacal II being a later ruler in the 8th century.
Last edited: