Relic from a goody hut

[stealth_nsk]

Of course balance exists in a single player game, why not ? For example, balance between the game's systems allows each to work well with each other and lets the game flourish into many more possibilities, and depth. If you throw anything out of balance it does the opposite. It can also mean of course balance in terms of how much of a chance to win or lose you may have (an extreme example of imbalance making it impossible to win). In the case of goody hut, we have opportunity cost of not rushing for discovering as many goody huts, luck factor of getting or not the best goody hut, and what happens in the higher difficulties of the game such as AI opponents having more opportunity to catch the goody huts.

If you place a few really imbalanced bonuses in there you can see there can be imbalance in a single player game, e.g. a goody hut that gives you a nuke at the start of the game A swordman unit with 100 combat strength.

Balance does not at all mean only making chances to win equal to every players in a multiplayer game ; even in a multiplayer game it means other things.

Yes, such things exist, but they are different from usual meaning of balance. For example, having one good hut bonus stronger than others (but still far from game-winning) doesn't limit number of strategic choices and could actually enrich game by offering other strategies.

EDIT:

I was going to agree with you but then I thought of the super-unbalanced trade routes in CivBE, essentially (for as little as I ended up playing the game at least) making all of the other neat mechanics and ideas for the game unimportant.

Yes, that's the same thing. Balance in single player exists in this dimension where some things could destroy strategical decisions. But it doesn't have relations with, for example, Civ vs. Civ balance or, as it is here, goody hut bonuses.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

For example, having one good hut bonus stronger than others (but still far from game-winning) doesn't limit number of strategic choices and could actually enrich game by offering other strategies.

Hope so :]

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

This is going to be really popular with Kongo

 

[Siptah]

This is going to be really popular with Kongo

But Kongo cannot choose the triple faith from relics pantheon.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But Kongo cannot choose the triple faith from relics pantheon.

Not a pantheon, a follower belief, so Kongo can just adopt that religion.

Also, Kongo Can get a Pantheon, and in Civ6 you get to keep your Pantheon.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

But Kongo cannot choose the triple faith from relics pantheon.

Why? Just because they can't build Holy Sites doesn't mean they can't found a religion. They could build Stonehenge, rush a Great Prophet with Gold, get Faith from a goodie hut. Etc.

 

[Siptah]

Guess I was wrong. In two ways at the same time.

 

[Gintoki89]

Why? Just because they can't build Holy Sites doesn't mean they can't found a religion. They could build Stonehenge, rush a Great Prophet with Gold, get Faith from a goodie hut. Etc.

Stonehenge yes, but doesn't a Great Prophet need to found the religion on the Holy Site tile itself?

 

[BrokenBokken]

Stonehenge yes, but doesn't a Great Prophet need to found the religion on the Holy Site tile itself?

Or on stonehenge

 

[shyPiano]

Problem is, Mvemba a Nzinga can't recruit Great Prophets. So no founding religion for Kongo either way.
I think this will be like Venice and Liberty's "Free Settler" - Stonehenge will probably not work like usual for Kongo.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Problem is, Mvemba a Nzinga can't recruit Great Prophets. So no founding religion for Kongo either way.
I think this will be like Venice and Liberty's "Free Settler" - Stonehenge will probably not work like usual for Kongo.

Oooh, well that is interesting. I wonder why they chose to go down this path.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Oooh, well that is interesting. I wonder why they chose to go down this path.

I think it's pretty logical. Religion is optional mechanics, so there are no-religion strategies, so developers decided to have a civ focused on it. Civ bonuses seem to compliment this - one of the biggest use of faith seems to be buying Great People, so developers gave bonuses for some great people instead.

 

[Acken]

But doesnt it mean Kongo cant go for a religious victory ?

 

[Siptah]

But doesnt it mean Kongo cant go for a religious victory ?

I still believe they would have said that. It also seems strange if there is really no possibility. Maybe if you extinct the civ that founded 'your' religion? Sometimes I only allow one victory to see how it plays out if all AIs compete for the same, and it would be a shame if Kongo can't compete for the religious victory.

 

[Acken]

In civ5 disabling victories mostly meant the ai couldnt chose those as their grand strategy which has some effects on flavor and behavior.

Still feels strange to lock out a civ from a victory type. Did it ever happen ? Wonder if they thought of something else.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But doesnt it mean Kongo cant go for a religious victory ?

We don't know if conquering a Holy City makes you the religion founder. If yes, Kongo could win religious victory this way (and through conquering cities with Holy Sites), if not - they can't have one.

 

[BrokenSky]

1 faith per turn would be acceptable I should think. It certainly shouldn't provide more than a shrine.
However I would think that increasing the faith & tourism value per era would be interesting.

That way relics increase in value over time - much like in real life....
Perhaps +1 faith and +1 tourism per era?

You mean that each relic would have bonuses based on how old it was, or every relic would get the same upgrade? (E.g. I find a religious relic from a goody hut, and then another in the classical age, do they give the same faith, or does the older one give more? And if the older one gives more, does the newer one give more faith than the older one did when the older one was new?)