[R&F] Should be England be "Un-Nerfed"?

[acluewithout]

Actually. The two things which really annoy me is that: First, Zulu are a getting a version of England’s Pax Britney - free corps army when you conquer a city - just when England’s ‘original’ version is getting nerfed. So salty.

And Second, there was already lots of internet discussion about how the nerf to trade stacking made an (already not super strong) England significantly weaker (although I get some people regardless don’t want TR stacking restored as a solution). And yet despite this, England gets nerfed again.

Look, I’m a big fan of Firaxis. And I think they’re doing a good job all in all. I have no idea how hard getting all this stuff out and working is, but my guess is ‘pretty hard’. Everything I see or hear suggests to me these guys really love the game and are flat out making it the best it can be. And lots of the game is brilliant.

And I get there was an exploit around free cities and Pax Baloney, that they were aiming to get a first patch out super fast, and maybe this nerf was then most pragmatic solution for now.

And I get that maybe seriously rebalancing vanilla civs is something you do after you get the expansion working properly.

It’s just that... crikey... I’m on a mac so I don’t even have R&F yet. So I have to wait for that to be ported, then possible this patch to be ported, then another patch to come out balancing England, then wait for that to be ported. (And no, boot camp and geo force whatever aren’t a way forward for me, and no, I don’t really play civ other than England, ... except maybe Norway, and yes I appreciate I may be nuts.)

I’m not blaming the Firaxis guys. It’s just, well, ... sigh ...

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

England should be restored to where it was prepatch but also limited so it cannot farm free cities.

I'm of the opinion the ability was always to grant a free melee unit to a conquered city since it was stated in the description and has been present since the beginning. I don't see how it makes less sense than the Zulu magically gaining a corp/army from capturing a city.

 

[tedhebert]

England should be restored to where it was prepatch but also limited so it cannot farm free cities.

I'm of the opinion the ability was always to grant a free melee unit to a conquered city since it was stated in the description and has been present since the beginning. I don't see how it makes less sense the Zulu magically gaining a corp/army from capturing a city.

This !

 

[acluewithout]

Agreed

#makeenglandgreatagain

 

[Katakanja]

I'm of the opinion the ability was always to grant a free melee unit to a conquered city since it was stated in the description and has been present since the beginning. I don't see how it makes less sense than the Zulu magically gaining a corp/army from capturing a city.

It does leave something of a bad taste when Firaxis changes it and then suddenly decides to call the old conquering behaviour a "bug" when they wrote the original description describing it as an intended part of the ability. Doubly so when that description remains present in the game after the change even while they maintain it was always a "bug"

 

[juanpavo]

Question for the mod squad: How hard would it be to mod back in the "free unit with captured city" ability?

 

[onedreamer]

I'm agnostic on this point.

 

[DWilson]

We could follow English tradition and write them a Strongly-Worded Letter...

As an American, I approve. I'm also inclined to say we should all sign it individually, and title it "Declaration of <something>"

 

[isau]

I don't get the point of even having this ability if it applies only to settled cities. Talk about hunting a wildcard... either you'll end up starting directly next to a new continent and get a free-ish starter army right at the beginning, or else you earn 1 random soldier sometime in the late game on the remote chance you find a spot to settle a city, in a game that just introduced a Loyalty system to punish that.

The original wording of the ability says: "Founding or conquering a city on a continent other than your home continent grants a free melee unit in that city."

Where was the bug fix?

I had already modded England to provide a free unit on settling anywhere on another continent or on the coast in order to take some of the edge off of the randomness of starting close/far from a second continent. I don't know what to say now that the ability is even worse than before I specifically noted it as so broken it needed a custom written patch.

 

[Frostburn]

I chose the second option. If there is some technical reason that makes it somehow different to Alex's where they can't achieve making the bonus without free cities, they should get another form of compensation

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

No need to worry about loyalty! The RND now gives +4 loyalty per round on a foreign continent! It easily makes up for the loss of the extra trade route!

And seeing as how fast it is to build a RND in a new city, without developed plots, you can probably enjoy that +4 loyalty in 20-35 turns.

I wonder what they will change about England next. Maybe if you have a tea resource, America will get +20 attack strength against you? Or perhaps Sea Dogs will all require iron to build? How about Red Coats get -10 when fighting non-army units?

 

[WillowBrook]

The free unit on conquest seemed a little weird to me, but I wouldn't object to it returning in a form more difficult to exploit. Perhaps you only get the unit once the conquered city becomes fully loyal to England, and only once per city.

But a different buff to make up for this and the trade route nerf would also be fine with me - maybe an extra trade route each time you settle on a continent you've not settled before and after you enter the renaissance.

 

[Archon_Wing]

No need to worry about loyalty! The RND now gives +4 loyalty per round on a foreign continent! It easily makes up for the loss of the extra trade route!

And seeing as how fast it is to build a RND in a new city, without developed plots, you can probably enjoy that +4 loyalty in 20-35 turns.

I wonder what they will change about England next. Maybe if you have a tea resource, America will get +20 attack strength against you? Or perhaps Sea Dogs will all require iron to build? How about Red Coats get -10 when fighting non-army units?

I know, and you know how much 4 loyalty means against a established rival on another continent means.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Hasn't England suffered enough ?
They lost their additional trade routes and now part of the Leader Ability.
Granted, it was never a particularly good ability to begin with, but that's just insult to injury.
Many other civs got indirect buffs.
Germany got stronger because of the Government district and the buff to the Entertainment Complex which also improves Brazil.
France is legit good now because of the visibility combat bonus and new spy missions. Only England got hit with the nerf hammer.

I actually wonder whether England needs to be completely reworked rather than just tweaked at this point.

I dunno...the Brits by Victoria's time were pretty good at incorporating their foreign subjects into the military...

I chose the second option. If there is some technical reason that makes it somehow different to Alex's where they can't achieve making the bonus without free cities, they should get another form of compensation

Agree with all of that. Just get rid of the free melee units from other continents ang give them some other ability that doesn't rely so much on location.
Maybe a free melee unit whenever you become Suzerain of a CS for the first time and/or just additional gold on improved luxury recources.

 

[uniemaia]

Yes, every time the conquer a city, just like it was before the March 2018 patch

 

[isau]

If they must eliminate the ability get the unit free from city capture then IMO the ability should just be "Get a free melee unit when you found a city." No other continent required. How can anyone call that overpowered with Scythia and Zulu in this game. If you simply have to make it weaker than that make it require a coastal city and not be the capital. It would still be pretty weak but not as poor as this latest design.

 

[nzcamel]

I'd agree, yet the ability as it stands ties in with Vickie's agenda, and certainly is immersive, and is a very unique play style. Why undo all that?

 

[Cyon]

Could be two units for cities you settle on different continents, no units for conquer. And maybe buff the extra gold yield from docks.

 

[megabearsfan]

What exactly is meant by "trade stacking"? Is this referring to the old practice of getting 2 trade routes per city by having a commercial hub AND harbor?

I don't get the point of even having this ability if it applies only to settled cities. Talk about hunting a wildcard... either you'll end up starting directly next to a new continent and get a free-ish starter army right at the beginning, or else you earn 1 random soldier sometime in the late game on the remote chance you find a spot to settle a city, in a game that just introduced a Loyalty system to punish that.

The original wording of the ability says: "Founding or conquering a city on a continent other than your home continent grants a free melee unit in that city."

Where was the bug fix?

I had already modded England to provide a free unit on settling anywhere on another continent or on the coast in order to take some of the edge off of the randomness of starting close/far from a second continent. I don't know what to say now that the ability is even worse than before I specifically noted it as so broken it needed a custom written patch.

I think the map scripts needs to have more logic for creating island chains and smaller landmasses separated by shallow water. I believe Civ V had a map type called "Continents Plus" that did something like this. England (and Indonesia and maybe Australia) should have a start bias for starting on such islands or smaller landmasses. That would at least increase the likelihood of having another land mass to settle on.

Put simply: I agree that with the current map scripts, England's revised power seems to be a crap shoot. I like the idea pitched near the beginning of this thread that England should only get the free unit when capturing a city belonging to another civ or city state. So no free units from independent cities. That seems like it would solve the problem.

Just get rid of the free melee units from other continents ang give them some other ability that doesn't rely so much on location.
Maybe a free melee unit whenever you become Suzerain of a CS for the first time and/or just additional gold on improved luxury recources.

Or maybe a buff to intercontinental trade? Ideally something that works for both internal trade routes (if you're building intercontinental empires), and with foreign routes.
Maybe "Trade routes to cities on another continent provide extra gold equal to the sum of all other non-gold yields". Or "Trade routes to cities on another continent provide +2 gold. This bonus in increased by 1 at the start of each new era."
Or, "Lighthouses grant additional trade routes, even if the city already has a Market."

 

[nzcamel]

What exactly is meant by "trade stacking"? Is this referring to the old practice of getting 2 trade routes per city by having a commercial hub AND harbor?

Good question! I'm a bit confused over why people feel England had an ongoing advantage in that area, after only the first built of the two gave a trade route.

I think the logic is that cos England built the Dockyards twice as fast as others built Harbours, they got the trade route twice as fast. Now that it comes with the lighthouse instead it does take them longer. Then...it takes everyone longer, so I don't see it as anything more than a very minor nerf.
Unless someone cares to enlighten me on what I'm missing.