Rebalance of 2/3 of all civs in April!

[Evie]

I've been there, though that was a long time ago. Not many major parts of Quebec I haven't seen yet!

On another topic entirely, even if we were to add mythical monsters to the various civs, Ogopogo would be a terrible choice for the Cree - Lake Okanagan is well outside their territory, and Ogopogo is a nonsense English name, not a native one (the local first nations called it Naitaka. And they were still wholly unrelated to the Cree).

 

[Luxerne]

I also wonder how far they would go for the rebalance. Are they going to only retweak some value, or create new things? For example, can the Khmer have a unique Aqueduct (Barays), replacing the Prasat? Therefore creating a whole new ability?

This is an important point.

I remember that back when BNW and the big "Fall Patch" came out for Civ 5, they were willing to completely re-do some parts of base game civs, like how France first got their Chateau and City of Light ability then, replacing their Foreign Legion and Ancien Regime ability, or how Germany lost their Landsknechts and got the Hansa instead.

So far, the only complete change to a civ's uniques' we've seen in Civ 6 is how England's British Museum ability was entirely replaced by Workshop of the World in GS. Ultimately, however, changing a unique civ/leader ability is just editing some coding. We haven't seen anything on the level of losing a unique unit/infrastructure and gaining a different one, which would require entirely new graphics to be made.

Like you noted, a great candidate would be Khmer, who could have their Baray be an aqueduct replacement that doesn't need to be placed next to the city center and provides not just housing but also faith & food.

I've always thought that the Electronics Factory is a pretty underwhelming and unthematic unique building for Japan. I had some other ideas to replace it: Rock Garden / Karesansui or Tera as a Japanese unique improvement that is limited to once per city, must be built on a charming tile or better, does not remove woods/rainforest, provides additional amenities, culture, and faith based on appeal. Alternatively, an Ukiyo district replacing the entertainment complex, which provides bonus points to GWAM, and provides a major adjacency bonus to commercial hubs and harbors, and additional amenities from being adjacent to commercial hubs, harbors, or theatre squares. Maybe they could even have a preserve replacement for people who have the NFP. The icon and district graphics already looks like torii.

 

[Menocchio]

Now that we have seen every NFP civilisation, I do wonder how many were intentional experiments in archetypes: Gran Colombia advances the archetype of domination-via-movement-bonuses (cf. Persia, Chandragupta's India, Hungary, Mongolia; Ethiopia fits into the niche of faith-generators towards cultural victories (cf. Russia, Khmer, perhaps Georgia); Byzantium continued the trend of religious-domination hybrids (cf. Spain, Poland, Georgia); Portugal is the most powerful yet example of trader-types (cf. Mali, Cree, Egypt, somewhat Spain and Poland too); and Babylon of course is, if I am to be generous, a mad Frankenstein's monster bent on proving that domination victories are nothing more than science victories that remain on Earth (cf. Korea).

The others are far more avant-garde in their experimentation and seem to represent attempts at creating new archetypes or rejuvenating old ones: the Maya try to test the limits of tall-city gameplay; the Gauls introduce truly Zerg-like military tactics and outrageous early production; and the Vietnamese are the developers' most desperate attempt to get players to not chop all their forests and think of the trees. In particular, the former 5 civlisations do not deviate much from standard district-based gameplay (given that coastal cities are best placed on coast already, and hills are the best tiles to settle on already) while the latter 3 offer dramatically different attitudes about district and city placement.

Many have already pointed out, rightly, that the above-mentioned "Archetypal" new civilisations eclipse their predecessors: Gran Colombia's movement bonus is permanent, universal, and non-conditional. Ethiopia has faith boosts even Poland and Russia can rarely dream of, not to mention their faith-to-other-yields bonus outstripping by far that of Arabia. Byzantium's unparalleled ability synergy makes Spain weep at its basic incapabilities and its Crusading cavalry make the likes of (again) Poland and the Ottomans wish they had also invested in bunker-busting lances. Portugal laughs at the pathetically small and excessively conditional yields of other trading civs: +1 gold for each flat desert tile? How about food, production, gold, and science in abundance! This is itself an inference of Portugal's factual capabilities before release, but I think judging from what we have seen so far what looks powerful typically is powerful.

While we cannot know factually how long the developers have been working on pre-NFP civilisations' balance, a rare Anton Strenger tweet from September 14, 2020 on the subject of Georgia's lame duck status stating that "We're aware that many fans consider Georgia on the weaker side and continue to look at that, but for now, [Dramatic Ages] is where they can particularly shine" suggests an ongoing process: in other words, the developers have been toiling away at the new NFP additions while simultaneously considering the ramifications for existing civilisations. I am certain they were aware, in creating and releasing Byzantium, that similar civilisations would start to look dull or mediocre. Perhaps some of this was a desire to sell the DLC by including over-powered new toys, but the nuanced balance of the NFP civilisations as a collective suggests that the developers have good heads for Civilisation 6's gameplay potential.

Notably, besides bug fixes there has been only one direct civilisation balance change made thus far in the NFP, and that was for Gran Colombia in the October patch and by and large fairly small. This, in addition to the developer statement that April's patch will be "meaty" despite including no NFP content and presumably no new game mode, makes me optimistic.

Luxerne above makes a good point: England was changed drastically, but this still was only a matter of some coding, and so I think it is reasonable to expect some civlisation(s) to receive similar treatment. The big questions are: given the consistently high output of new art assets for new features each month, will the balance changes be similar and thus include whole new districts, units, and so on? Further, will these balance changes be ruleset-sensitive, offering alternate abilities based on the expansions installed as America, England, and others do? I think it important to keep in mind that, semantically speaking, England never lost its "old" ability, British Museum: so long as one does not use the Gathering Storm ruleset, or does not have that expansion, they will not have Workshop of the World. It does not seem too far-fetched to me that the balance changes to other civilisations may take into account the vast changes in gameplay since 2016.

Forgive me for the verbose first post: I have small thoughts but too much time to expound on them.

 

[Xandinho]

I really hope that Spain and Netherlands will get a good rebalancing in the next month, they are quite obscured by Portugal now.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I really hope that Spain and Netherlands will get a good rebalancing in the next month, they are quite obscured by Portugal now.

Portugal now basically occupies the "Naval Trade" design position. Spain would better be modified towards "Conquest, Faith and Science", and Netherland would better be modified towards "River and Costal Infrastructures".

 

[Menocchio]

I really hope that Spain and Netherlands will get a good rebalancing in the next month, they are quite obscured by Portugal now.

Agreed! I loved the Dutch for being able to maintain a strong science lead despite living on coastal rivers; now that is old news. My deepest desire is for polders to be changed in one or more of the following ways: buildable on marsh tiles; get bigger yield bonuses and earlier; to count as land tiles for purposes of unit movement; and most of all, for polders to count for each others' adjacency so that you can truly accomplish some land reclamation. From my own editing, I know that the first and last of these are probably not possible to do as a mod, so I do hope the developers do some wizardry just for the poor old Dutch. It will never not baffle me that it takes until Civil Engineering for Hollander tulips to become proper money-makers. Absurd!

 

[Xandinho]

Portugal now basically occupies the "Naval Trade" design position. Spain would better be modified towards "Conquest, Faith and Science", and Netherland would better be modified towards "River and Costal Infrastructures".

Agreed! I loved the Dutch for being able to maintain a strong science lead despite living on coastal rivers; now that is old news. My deepest desire is for polders to be changed in one or more of the following ways: buildable on marsh tiles; get bigger yield bonuses and earlier; to count as land tiles for purposes of unit movement; and most of all, for polders to count for each others' adjacency so that you can truly accomplish some land reclamation. From my own editing, I know that the first and last of these are probably not possible to do as a mod, so I do hope the developers do some wizardry just for the poor old Dutch. It will never not baffle me that it takes until Civil Engineering for Hollander tulips to become proper money-makers. Absurd!

I think Spain is weak in everything it does. They can limit Missions to cities only on another continent, as long as they make it really strong to be worth the investment of colonizing cities on other continents. Furthermore, I think Spain should have an impulse to found religion, with holy sites or shrines giving extra Great Prophet points.

The Netherlands think it needs something, it's recognized for its vast maritime trade but its trade bonuses are disappointing (although it's the ability of Wilhelmina and not of the civ). I think Netherlands should do something with the Stock Exchange and Seaport, like having them earlier, for half the price and granting double gold.

 

[Menocchio]

Spain's trade ability is so strange to me, because it incentivises settling colonies in order to reap the benefits of gold in... international trade? For an ability explicitly based on the transatlantic Spanish gold convoys it misses the extremely important point that, unlike the Portuguese, these fleets transited from the Americas back to Spain, not to ports in other countries. If I were to give it a very basic makeover, I would change it to something like: domestic trade routes between different continents grant +X gold to sending/receiving cities on your home continent and +X science/faith to sending/receiving cities on other continents per copy of a luxury resource. That way it would fix the number one most important problem with vanilla civilisation abilities which NFP entries succeed at excellently: a lack of scalability. Egypt would need something similar.

 

[sonicmyst]

I wish Netherlands be slightly tweaked to have more advantages based on Loyalty. Something like extra gold and culture on loyal cities, perhaps?

 

[DefiantMars]

Portugal now basically occupies the "Naval Trade" design position. Spain would better be modified towards "Conquest, Faith and Science", and Netherland would better be modified towards "River and Costal Infrastructures".

As if I didn't think Spain needed work before, seeing Portugal's bonuses has only further cemented my opinion that they need a rework. I will say that I'm rather impressed with the Portugal's abilities.

I was never against the notion of it's inclusion, but I was always skeptical about how it would differentiate itself from other trade civs. Unfortunately, I think this new fresh take really illustrates what is wrong with the Spanish and Dutch (and arguably even Cleopatra's LA).

But it gets even worse for Spain, since their niche is currently being taken over by two different NFP Civs. Portugal occupying the economic side of things and Byzantium doing the domination-faith gameplay. So I really hope the April Update carves out a deeper space for Spain to occupy because right now it's trying to do three different things at the same time and being out-competed in all of it.

I think there needs to be more interplay between the foci of Spain's Uniques and I wonder if leaning into the colonial aspect would be a good way of doing that?

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Workers. These are traditionally lumberjacks returning home for the holidays from their forests far in the north, not hunters/rangers

La Chasse-Gallerie.

Folklores: The Wild Hunt is led by the Devil and is full of demons and monsters taking lifes of people unaware of them!
Quebecois folklore: We're rowing on a flying canoe to see our blondes, tabernacle!

This is an important point.

I remember that back when BNW and the big "Fall Patch" came out for Civ 5, they were willing to completely re-do some parts of base game civs, like how France first got their Chateau and City of Light ability then, replacing their Foreign Legion and Ancien Regime ability, or how Germany lost their Landsknechts and got the Hansa instead.

So far, the only complete change to a civ's uniques' we've seen in Civ 6 is how England's British Museum ability was entirely replaced by Workshop of the World in GS. Ultimately, however, changing a unique civ/leader ability is just editing some coding. We haven't seen anything on the level of losing a unique unit/infrastructure and gaining a different one, which would require entirely new graphics to be made.

Like you noted, a great candidate would be Khmer, who could have their Baray be an aqueduct replacement that doesn't need to be placed next to the city center and provides not just housing but also faith & food.

I've always thought that the Electronics Factory is a pretty underwhelming and unthematic unique building for Japan. I had some other ideas to replace it: Rock Garden / Karesansui or Tera as a Japanese unique improvement that is limited to once per city, must be built on a charming tile or better, does not remove woods/rainforest, provides additional amenities, culture, and faith based on appeal. Alternatively, an Ukiyo district replacing the entertainment complex, which provides bonus points to GWAM, and provides a major adjacency bonus to commercial hubs and harbors, and additional amenities from being adjacent to commercial hubs, harbors, or theatre squares. Maybe they could even have a preserve replacement for people who have the NFP. The icon and district graphics already looks like torii.

One thing I notice is a big shift in the design philosophy in FRX from the beginnings to today.
Nowadays, when a new civ is designed, it's often has a focus, and most abilities/uniques works somewhat together in neat synergies. Everything is somewhat connected, even slightly.

But look at vanilla civs. Japan has LUA towards coastal combat, a CUA towards city planning and a UI replacing the factory and giving culture; Germany has a militarist LUA, a city-planning CUA and an economic IZ as a UI; Spain as a religious/domination LUA, a naval/exploration/colonization CUA and a scientific/religious UI; Brazil has a LUA towards GPP but a CUA towards rainforest and a UI that doesn't even benefits from the CUA ; China had a LUA towards wonders and builders, a CUA for eurekas/inspirations and a defensive UI; Egypt has a LUA for trade, a CUA for buildings and a UI for religion/appeal; Norwegians had a naval/pillaged focused LUA/CUA but their UI was completely religious and had nothing to do with even coast (until later patches)...
It's as if Firaxis, instead of thinking a civ as a single unity working together for different goals, went toward the route of a package of independent elements in an effort to represent more broadly the civ rather than thinking about synergy or mechanics. That's why we have a U-Boat for a HRE Emperor, or an electronic factory for a rather medieval Japan.

The pros of this is that we don't shoehorn a civ in a particular gameplay or victory path. You're more than heavily persuaded to go for trade as Mali or to preserve features as Maoris. For Vanilla civs, you had a bunches of bonuses that could help in different ways and thus allowing you to have a more flexible gameplay. Proofs: the Free Imperial Cities and Hansa of Germany allows you to basically do whatever you want.
But the cons are that the civs might appear too dispersed, too distracted. And since the new OP civs, old civs are completely lost. Spain is supposed to be able to go for a scientific, domination or religious victory, but by doing all of it it fails at all. As the Hunting Tech quote for civ 4: "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both."

TL;DR: As I kind of like the early philosophy of civ design, it has room for improvement but I don't want Spain to be shoehorned into "faith/domination" civ, I want them to keep their naval and science flavors.

 

[Linklite]

Germany has a militarist LUA, a city-planning CUA and an economic IZ as a UI.

Well, Germany at least is synergistic - it is built to be an army producer. It has the increased production capacity (it can afford to have the Hansa as an additional District to boost production in addition to the bigger adjacencies that a Hansa has) allowing it to hard build armies faster. It has an additional military slot to boost their military ability. It has additional strength against CSs to allow it expansion even when its neighbours are peers. China is focused more on culture with its increased inspirations, Wonder building (both with its UI and extra building charges) and generally getting a CV. I'm not so great at picking out synergies, but they've always existed.

I suspect what you are seeing is the maluses that have become more popular over time to counter OP bonuses. These effectively force you down a root - even though Germany is primarily a militaristic civ, it can be redirected to a peaceful SV or CV without major loss. Mali is great with gold, but with its malus production, means that you basically have to use gold to prop your cities up. There's little you can do about it - sure, you can build IZs and what not to make up for it, but then you're losing out elsewhere and would still be even worse off compared to another civ using the same configuration. I think this is what you are picking up on, that older civs are generally a bit more versatile, than not having synergy.

That said, I do miss the fact that old civs tend have their bonuses more directly linked to their personas. Germany is perceived to be a very efficient and productive country, and so they get better production and IZ. Their history is intimately linked to combining CSs to form their nation, so they get a bonus to taking over CSs. Britain is associated with colonialism and industrialisation, so it has a unit that is great for protecting its colonies as well as a bonus for colonising, it hasnl a bonus for coal and so forth. The bonuses seem very much informed by the civ's history and persona. Compare that to Babylon. Why do they get full techs from Eurekas? It just seems like the devs just thought "Babylon seems sciency, what's a good science bonus that we haven't done yet? Ah, full techs from Eurekas! How can we balance that? Ok, 50% malus to science it is".

Don't get me wrong, as a gamer, I appreciate that they are a unique playstyle. Old style civs are a bit bland, a lot of their bonuses means that you pick your playstyle and then pick a civ to match. Want to hard build armies? Play as Germany. Want to build lots of Wonders? China. Want to use levies? Hungary. You just play how you want, and some civs will naturally help you with your goal. With these new civs, they are about changing up the playstyle. With Mali, you have to set up trade routes, Babylon you have to chase Eurekas, Portugal has to dominate the seas, and so forth. I like that. But the older civs have a historical flavour, where their bonuses make you feel like you are playing as those civs, that newer ones seem to lack and are more game-based. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

One thing I notice is a big shift in the design philosophy in FRX from the beginnings to today.
Nowadays, when a new civ is designed, it's often has a focus, and most abilities/uniques works somewhat together in neat synergies. Everything is somewhat connected, even slightly.

I've noticed that too. I think back then they were still designing things using the philosophy from prior Civ games, where the bonuses were more simple and subtle. Hence why most vanilla civs had abilities that were good, yes, but nothing that makes you jump out of your seat and exclaim "that's OP."

Back then, I think Civs were always designed in a very "soft" and non-forceful way when it came to their abilities. Rather than forcing you into a playstyle with strengths and maluses, they all just subtly encouraged you into playing a certain way, but still ultimately leaving the choice up to you. None were particularly flashy, none required you to play a certain way to make the most of them, and few of them had maluses or direct synergy with the rest of their kit.

The only exception would really be Kongo, as they were the only base game Civ with a malus: no founding a religion. Even then, it seems like they were created with a different design philosophy entirely when compared to the other vanilla civs. Most vanilla civs had no direct, non-conditional number bonuses. Even things that were close (Teddy's combat strength, Pericles and Gorgo's LAs) were still conditional and required a specific circumstance to be triggered. Kongo was the only civ in the game that said "have double great people points, non-conditionally." But Kongo's more asymmetric, synergistic and... for lack of a better term, "obvious" design seemed to be the formula civs would try to imitate afterward.

I see the vanilla civs (excluding Kongo) like this: you're ordering a meal from a restaurant. And of course, there's a main course, but that's not all you have. There's plenty of small sides and beverages that go along with it. They may not be directly tied to the main course, but they're still part of the meal. That's what Civ VI's original design philosophy was: in each civ, the player would be given a main course and some sides.

But with Civs like Kongo, rather than having a diverse meal made up of smaller, unconnected parts, you were simply given a giant main course, doused in seasonings and flavorings. There was only the one main course, and really, only one thing to eat. But, that one main course has so many things working toward it that it may very well be the best thing you ever taste. Does that make it an overall better meal than having all those side dishes? That's up to you. But the "single main course" ideology was what the Civ team designed everything around from then on.

In the single DLC packs and Rise and Fall, we began to see that transition in design. Most civs felt more like main courses, and if they did have sides to open up other playstyles, they were usually not as many. Sure, Persia can go Domination or Culture, but they don't have an inclination to do much else. And sadly, during this transition period lots of... gimmicky abilities started to show up. Particularly with all the stupid Cassus Belli abilities. Cyrus, Chandragupta, Robert the Bruce, Tamar, John Curtin, and probably more that I'm forgetting all had abilities tied to different types of war. Personally, I hate it, and it takes up the slot of what could have been an interesting ability with more applicable use cases, but that's entirely my opinion.

The general design of civs hadn't entirely shifted over to that main course mentality, but you were definitely starting to see a lot more refinement in their abilities and playstyles. You weren't getting nearly as many sides. But, when things truly transformed was when Gathering Storm released, showing off lots of hyper-focused civs with specific playstyles who weren't very lax about you not playing to their strengths. No longer were you given little sides- everything in a civs kit had a specific purpose for what they were meant to be doing. "Wait, how does a cultural diplomatic civ make use of a combat unit when they can't declare surprise wars?" "Simple: it makes National Parks for you." "What use does Mali have for an offensive military unit? They already have enough gold to purchase what they need." "Well, it gives you gold on kills." "Hey, why does Hungary need a bonus to districts anyway?" "So you can develop your crucial Domination infrastructure to be ready for your levying timing attack."

Everything in a Civ's kit now had purpose. And, this is when playstyles became more forceful. As Mali, I have to purchase the majority of my infrastructure. I don't have a choice there- the production penalty is steep. As the Maori, I can't remove natural features, and I have to start in the ocean. Even in cases where the unique playstyles they offered weren't reinforced by maluses, you have to remember that every civ is a main course now. Even if you wanted to do something other than what they are specifically meant for, you have no sides to encourage it. Sure, I could go for a religious victory as the Ottomans, but I'd just be wasting my time, as they have zero bonuses to anything other than conquest and siege.

This main course mentality has a twofold effect on the game:

1. Civs are now much more hyper-focused, carefully tooled experiences and provide unique, synergistic games that you couldn't find elsewhere.
2. Civs are now less forgiving to other playstyles, and somewhat bottleneck you into playing the way they encourage.

Does that mean that the main course mentality is better than receiving a bunch of sides? I don't know, that's up to you. But what I do know is that we've watched a visible transformation in Firaxis's design philosophy over the course of Civ VI, and I fully expect that if/when we get a Civ VII that the new Civs will fit the main course mentality.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I suspect what you are seeing is the maluses that have become more popular over time to counter OP bonuses.

Rather than forcing you into a playstyle with strengths and maluses

I think you both misunderstood me, but it's my fault since I talked about Mali and Maoris. But my observation also stands for, let's say, Swedes or Hungarians or Phoenicians. Those civs seems more focused on what they do without the seemingly dispersion that vanilla civ can endure, but they have no maluses, great synergies and we really have the feel that every unique has been designed with the others in place.

But otherwise, I really like your comparison between a three-course meal and a one-course meal. You nailed it.

Compare that to Babylon. Why do they get full techs from Eurekas? It just seems like the devs just thought "Babylon seems sciency, what's a good science bonus that we haven't done yet? Ah, full techs from Eurekas! How can we balance that? Ok, 50% malus to science it is".

It's not really babylonian as more of a "how ancient civs would probably had made scientific discoveries". Before Alhazen, there was no real scientific method. You couldn't plan some research, put funds in it and wait patiently. It was a time of loooong periods without real innovations followed by quick bursts of sudden knowledge sparked by a random observation - a Eureka. In this way, I feel that it represent well Babylon as one of the first civs to go through big scientific achievements in this way.
Of course, this theory crumbles when advancing through the eras where scientific advancement should follow a more "reasonable" pattern... But for me it's kind of justified beyond the gimmicky "Babylon is a science civ, let's give them a random science bonus". Enuma Anu Enlil is a CUA that can work for Babylon but that would be completely out of place for most of the other "science civs" like the Mayans, Korea or Scotland which were already in a more "rational" approach of science than the burstings of the begginings of History.
AT least that's my personal analysis.

 

[UWHabs]

I've noticed that too. I think back then they were still designing things using the philosophy from prior Civ games, where the bonuses were more simple and subtle. Hence why most vanilla civs had abilities that were good, yes, but nothing that makes you jump out of your seat and exclaim "that's OP."

Back then, I think Civs were always designed in a very "soft" and non-forceful way when it came to their abilities. Rather than forcing you into a playstyle with strengths and maluses, they all just subtly encouraged you into playing a certain way, but still ultimately leaving the choice up to you. None were particularly flashy, none required you to play a certain way to make the most of them, and few of them had maluses or direct synergy with the rest of their kit.

The only exception would really be Kongo, as they were the only base game Civ with a malus: no founding a religion. Even then, it seems like they were created with a different design philosophy entirely when compared to the other vanilla civs. Most vanilla civs had no direct, non-conditional number bonuses. Even things that were close (Teddy's combat strength, Pericles and Gorgo's LAs) were still conditional and required a specific circumstance to be triggered. Kongo was the only civ in the game that said "have double great people points, non-conditionally." But Kongo's more asymmetric, synergistic and... for lack of a better term, "obvious" design seemed to be the formula civs would try to imitate afterward.

I see the vanilla civs (excluding Kongo) like this: you're ordering a meal from a restaurant. And of course, there's a main course, but that's not all you have. There's plenty of small sides and beverages that go along with it. They may not be directly tied to the main course, but they're still part of the meal. That's what Civ VI's original design philosophy was: in each civ, the player would be given a main course and some sides.

But with Civs like Kongo, rather than having a diverse meal made up of smaller, unconnected parts, you were simply given a giant main course, doused in seasonings and flavorings. There was only the one main course, and really, only one thing to eat. But, that one main course has so many things working toward it that it may very well be the best thing you ever taste. Does that make it an overall better meal than having all those side dishes? That's up to you. But the "single main course" ideology was what the Civ team designed everything around from then on.

In the single DLC packs and Rise and Fall, we began to see that transition in design. Most civs felt more like main courses, and if they did have sides to open up other playstyles, they were usually not as many. Sure, Persia can go Domination or Culture, but they don't have an inclination to do much else. And sadly, during this transition period lots of... gimmicky abilities started to show up. Particularly with all the stupid Cassus Belli abilities. Cyrus, Chandragupta, Robert the Bruce, Tamar, John Curtin, and probably more that I'm forgetting all had abilities tied to different types of war. Personally, I hate it, and it takes up the slot of what could have been an interesting ability with more applicable use cases, but that's entirely my opinion.

The general design of civs hadn't entirely shifted over to that main course mentality, but you were definitely starting to see a lot more refinement in their abilities and playstyles. You weren't getting nearly as many sides. But, when things truly transformed was when Gathering Storm released, showing off lots of hyper-focused civs with specific playstyles who weren't very lax about you not playing to their strengths. No longer were you given little sides- everything in a civs kit had a specific purpose for what they were meant to be doing. "Wait, how does a cultural diplomatic civ make use of a combat unit when they can't declare surprise wars?" "Simple: it makes National Parks for you." "What use does Mali have for an offensive military unit? They already have enough gold to purchase what they need." "Well, it gives you gold on kills." "Hey, why does Hungary need a bonus to districts anyway?" "So you can develop your crucial Domination infrastructure to be ready for your levying timing attack."

Everything in a Civ's kit now had purpose. And, this is when playstyles became more forceful. As Mali, I have to purchase the majority of my infrastructure. I don't have a choice there- the production penalty is steep. As the Maori, I can't remove natural features, and I have to start in the ocean. Even in cases where the unique playstyles they offered weren't reinforced by maluses, you have to remember that every civ is a main course now. Even if you wanted to do something other than what they are specifically meant for, you have no sides to encourage it. Sure, I could go for a religious victory as the Ottomans, but I'd just be wasting my time, as they have zero bonuses to anything other than conquest and siege.

This main course mentality has a twofold effect on the game:

1. Civs are now much more hyper-focused, carefully tooled experiences and provide unique, synergistic games that you couldn't find elsewhere.
2. Civs are now less forgiving to other playstyles, and somewhat bottleneck you into playing the way they encourage.

Does that mean that the main course mentality is better than receiving a bunch of sides? I don't know, that's up to you. But what I do know is that we've watched a visible transformation in Firaxis's design philosophy over the course of Civ VI, and I fully expect that if/when we get a Civ VII that the new Civs will fit the main course mentality.

It's kind of a natural way. Early on, I imagine they probably designed most of the civs before they fully ironed out the game mechanics, so it was a little hard to place the civs. I mean initially, it took a few iterations to even get the base mechanics down - wasn't it initially how every unique district didn't count to district slots? So yeah, hard to design a civ when early on, the game is completely changing around you.

And then yeah, once they got the basics down, when they started to rise and fall, they could expand a little bit and try to give some more situational play styles. So yeah, as you said, they got excited by all those unique CB abilities, and you start getting civs like Korea which had even more unique district placement, but it was a super strong district (pre-release it started at +6 campuses!).

And then once you get to gathering storm, they took it to the next step, and that's where you get the Maori, or even stuff like Canada skipping a game mechanic, or Dido moving their capital.

But the real flaw in all of this is that they haven't really fully revisited the early civs. Oh, sure, they add some blizzard protection to Russia or tweak pieces here or there, but they really don't go back and change things. You have some civs who have literally not changed an ounce since release like Arabia (granted, they're a somewhat unique enough civ in their own right, so probably need a change less than a lot of others). That's why I'm definitely curious to see what this new big change will be. Did they over-hype and 2/3 of civs are changing because they're adding a few extra faith or culture points here or there, or will they actually go through and pull an England on some of these civs?

 

[Lokreah]

Happy to see agreement for Spain's rework. In my opinion, Spain is one of the most unplayable Civilizations in the game, as their entire design is contradictory to itself.

They're focused on a religion, but they have a coastal bias. Coastal biases do not have strong environments in order to gain a religion, as oceans tend to be situated away from mountains. Your best bet for faith adjacency are...Forests.

Even then, Spain received no bonuses to even obtaining a religion and honestly has no incentive.

It's not like Poland, where you can beeline Mysticism and obtain the Great Prophet wild card, which allows you to easily get the 2nd Religion.

So, you want a religion, which lies in playing Tall early game, which means no Ancestral Hall. Audience Chamber is very good now, yet....Spain wants to colonize other continents for their Mission improvement. Settler production bonuses from Ancestral Hall can be ignored, but the free builder is really what jumpstarts things.

Speaking of other continents, Treasure Fleets would be fine if the ability actually scaled per era. Instead, it's just a pathetic +4 Gold, or +1 Food / +1 Production. (Or +2 iirc I forget it's not significant). The ability has absolutely no effect in gameplay.

Moving on, early Armadas and Fleets. Mercantilism is directly opposite to Theocracy. Where is the power spike? Spain wants a strong religion, and wants to sweep a continent, yet is i capable of doing that in a timely manner. Cool. Oh, and Conquistadors are smack dab in the middle of the tech tree, which is nowhere near ocean development.

What the hell is going on with this Civ? I legitimately believe that they are the worst Civ in the game, far worse than Georgia, who at least has a solid, if linear gameplan.

SOS for Spain. They're such a marvelously cool idea, particularly earlier Fleets and Armadas, but the execution is atrocious.

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

Spain ends up being really strong if you can get a religion. I think a tiny boost there would be enough to balance. Maybe giving holy sites a boost for coastal, encampment or harbor adjacency?

 

[UWHabs]

Spain ends up being really strong if you can get a religion. I think a tiny boost there would be enough to balance. Maybe giving holy sites a boost for coastal, encampment or harbor adjacency?

I wouldn't mind giving them some sort of ability to found a religion outside of holy sites. Was thinking about them before, and one random idea I came up with was give them +1 GPP for every civ they have met who has founded a religion. So that won't help them get the first religion, but would be sort of like Arabia's ability in that they'll be almost guaranteed one of the later religions unless if they're really isolate.

Another option would be something like +1 GPP in the palace. Basically another semi-passive way to help them out without just giving them a religion. There's also more things they could do with religion - if you changed Missions to be a one-per-city improvement more like a hockey arena, you could add in some more abilities to them like giving cheaper missionary purchasing in cities with them, or having cities with a mission count like a holy city for passive spread, or something like that.

Or if you don't want to go the religious route, I'd love to see them bring back the "Conquistadors can found cities" ability like they had in civ 5. That'd turn them into a potentially insane mid-game settling civ if they could settle infinitely without increasing settler costs.

 

[Lokreah]

That wouldn't actually fix the issues on their design. It's just a bandaid fix. Focusing religion is fine early, but Spain's midgame is an absolute mess. As I said, Mercantilism is directly opposite of Theocracy. Conquistadors (Gunpowder) is nowhere near ocean development. Their gameplan is just all over the place.

 

[Vandlys]

I really hope that Spain and Netherlands will get a good rebalancing in the next month, they are quite obscured by Portugal now.

I think Spain is weak in everything it does. They can limit Missions to cities only on another continent, as long as they make it really strong to be worth the investment of colonizing cities on other continents. Furthermore, I think Spain should have an impulse to found religion, with holy sites or shrines giving extra Great Prophet points.

The Netherlands think it needs something, it's recognized for its vast maritime trade but its trade bonuses are disappointing (although it's the ability of Wilhelmina and not of the civ). I think Netherlands should do something with the Stock Exchange and Seaport, like having them earlier, for half the price and granting double gold.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was surprised that when GS came out they didn't do something more thematic for the Dutch. They have so many obvious things to go for in a game. If you don't want to focus on their naval trade (VOC being one of the first and largest corporations ever), you can focus on their early banking system, or loads of dams. Now, polders should of course work for this, but I agree I would rather have seen them turn to land tiles, which are flooded if you pillage them.

I think your stock exchange and seaport idea coming earlier and granting double gold would be a good change already.