Russia

[doublex55]

Changes to Russia feel like change for the sake of change at this point. If nothing else I could see the Ostrog (somehow) unlocking in late-medieval, but even then I don't think it is essential.

G

I disagree. I have (hopefully) laid out specific reasons why i think these changes would benefit Russia from both design and gameplay perspectives.
I would appreciate if you could give feedback on my change suggestions so i can make better ones in the future. (I made sure not to have it be crazy luke the Persia changes I suggested.) thanks.

 

[CrazyG]

Usually I connect horses and sell half of them. An extra 6 or 7 gold per turn early on is a really massive bonus for a warmonger. Horsemen are really strong, having access to as many as you want pays of big time. On water maps extra iron is also great, and bonus science early on is a big help in unlocking units faster. Early aggression can also pay off because Russia has no bonus faith, making targeting a holy city a good idea.

 

[doublex55]

Usually I connect horses and sell half of them. An extra 6 or 7 gold per turn early on is a really massive bonus for a warmonger. Horsemen are really strong, having access to as many as you want pays of big time. On water maps extra iron is also great, and bonus science early on is a big help in unlocking units faster. Early aggression can also pay off because Russia has no bonus faith, making targeting a holy city a good idea.

Just to be clear, IMO Russia should be just as likely to target a holy city early as say, Korea. Having the best post-industrial military in the game should mean you have to be weak at some point.

 

[Gokudo01]

Changes to Russia feel like change for the sake of change at this point. If nothing else I could see the Ostrog (somehow) unlocking in late-medieval, but even then I don't think it is essential.

G

Yes already said sooner, but he doesn't like the theme

 

[Gazebo]

Just to be clear, IMO Russia should be just as likely to target a holy city early as say, Korea. Having the best post-industrial military in the game should mean you have to be weak at some point.

Russia has weaknesses. She’s very vulnerable to pillaging and none of her bonuses affect city yields, so happiness is a real issue going very wide. Additionally if you can’t improve your border growth rate you’ll fall off.

G

 

[infidel88]

Russia isn't top tier, but if you settle aggressively enough, thanks to your UA you can guarantee strategic monopoly on most resources (which translates into +10% CS from iron and horsies). Yes, coal - next strategic resource - is quite far away and Russia seems very generic, but far from weak.

 

[Owlbebach]

Dunno, i think Russia is weak. At least on Deity i found it one of the weakest civs. But thing is in human hands civs may seem very different on different difficulty. (e.g. England is very good on deity, but probabaly one of the weakest on Emperor, cause you'll have tech lead no matter what you do)

 

[HungryForFood]

A bit of a sidetrack here, but what do you guys think about the science yield on strategic resource tiles? To me, it feels like a small bonus in Ancient and Classical, but then stops being relevant very quickly. What if it scales with era like how Korea's yield on specialists does?

 

[neo_arcadia]

Yes lol, I too think it's very low. Even when you change your resources setting into abundant. Your idea seems cool though, scaling with era like Korea.

I only played as Russia total three times though. On the other hand, going Autocracy will make your strategic resource like, super abundant. I mean, from one tile of 3 iron you will have 3 times 2 times 2 iron, much higher than I expected.

 

[CrazyG]

Dunno, i think Russia is weak. At least on Deity i found it one of the weakest civs. But thing is in human hands civs may seem very different on different difficulty. (e.g. England is very good on deity, but probabaly one of the weakest on Emperor, cause you'll have tech lead no matter what you do)

I tried this on your settings, and while I didn't win I don't think it was Russia's fault. One thing about turning off ruins (which if I recall correctly, you do) is that is really pushes the game towards early civs, which Russia isn't. That early science can be a big deal though, if you go warmonger its really nice to get horsemen/catapults/swords earlier

 

[Owlbebach]

I tried this on your settings, and while I didn't win I don't think it was Russia's fault. One thing about turning off ruins (which if I recall correctly, you do) is that is really pushes the game towards early civs, which Russia isn't. That early science can be a big deal though, if you go warmonger its really nice to get horsemen/catapults/swords earlier

I have to say that Ruins changes things a lot, recently i tried to play couple of games with them and even Progress which i hated so much seems playable.
The reason why started turning Ruins off was that i play mostly MP with my friend. It really bothers when one of us gets 2*culture+production while another one gets scout upgrade+map. However i have to say that Ruins became much more balanced since i started to turn them off, i recall a game mabe 8 or 9 months ago when i got like 350 faith in Ruins

 

[bigcat88]

I can say, that I played for Russia on different maps. On all maps(except islands) -> their UB 50% of border grows are useless. Cause when u build that UB, their always not enough space for border growth(except that cities that look to ocean). Maybe remove that bonus and give instead some another bonus?

 

[Funak]

I can say, that I played for Russia on different maps. On all maps(except islands) -> their UB 50% of border grows are useless. Cause when u build that UB, their always not enough space for border growth(except that cities that look to ocean). Maybe remove that bonus and give instead some another bonus?

That's actually one thing I've been complaining about since forever, but other than that I think Russia is fine.

 

[Mad Madigan]

I second the Ostrog's border growth bonus being too late in the game to matter much. I've seen several suggestions to swap the Ostrog border growth with the UA's Strategic Resource doubling, and I tend to agree. Given the limited Unit Supply Cap in the early game, I would never actually be able to build enough Horsemen/Swordsmen to ever utilize my early boon of Horses and Iron. I mostly just try to sell off the excess instead. However, I can understand that tying this bonus to the Ostrog makes it so you'd only affect the Strategic Resources within the city it's built, and I don't know if that code-fu is too much to mess around with at this point. Of course, getting the border growth bonus early could also mean needing to tone down the Science bonus. I agree it isn't a change to make lightly.

 

[infidel88]

You can always do brainless cities in arctic or on one tile islands, just like AI does (which is usually killing them, as they can't defend it, you can gain easy warscore from those cities and this is just silly increasing science and culture costs. Even then, bulding ostrog takes sooooo much time. Had it been castle, it would make more sense and use. Right now, it is a great concept that reflects their historical role, however totally useless when it comes to the game :/

 

[lunker]

I second the Ostrog's border growth bonus being too late in the game to matter much. I've seen several suggestions to swap the Ostrog border growth with the UA's Strategic Resource doubling, and I tend to agree. Given the limited Unit Supply Cap in the early game, I would never actually be able to build enough Horsemen/Swordsmen to ever utilize my early boon of Horses and Iron. I mostly just try to sell off the excess instead. However, I can understand that tying this bonus to the Ostrog makes it so you'd only affect the Strategic Resources within the city it's built, and I don't know if that code-fu is too much to mess around with at this point. Of course, getting the border growth bonus early could also mean needing to tone down the Science bonus. I agree it isn't a change to make lightly.

I think this idea is pretty good. Ostrog could double strategic resources the same way East India Company doubles luxuries.

 

[Enginseer]

I think this idea is pretty good. Ostrog could double strategic resources the same way East India Company doubles luxuries.

And then those tiles that can't be worked cannot be doubled because Ostrog relies on the working radius of a tile. Not to mention it does not exist in the database so it cannot be the same way EIC doubles luxuries.

 

[lunker]

And then those tiles that can't be worked cannot be doubled because Ostrog relies on the working radius of a tile. Not to mention it does not exist in the database so it cannot be the same way EIC doubles luxuries.

It's unfortunate it can't work like that. I do still think that moving the border growth to her UA would make her much better though. She may have too much overlap with Shoshone as an early game land grabber though.

 

[doublex55]

It's unfortunate it can't work like that. I do still think that moving the border growth to her UA would make her much better though. She may have too much overlap with Shoshone as an early game land grabber though.

Yup the coding would be whack. Easy fix is just keep the strategic resource in the UA and have it start in renaisance era.

@Enginseer Can we test such a version in your patch?

 

[chicorbeef]

The Ostrog costs 800 Hammers and comes at Metallurgy. But the Windmill and Opera House which come at the same tech tier cost 600 Hammers.

Can the Ostrog's cost be lowered to 600 Hammers as well for consistency?