So what do you feel is still broken?

[Drivingrevilo]

Yup, but it's still a limitation. That means it hardly qualifies as 'broken' or 'absurd'.

 

[MrRadar]

Mapuche's blanket +10 against civilizations in a golden age is extremely broken.

It's not limited to being usable by specific units, or against specific units. It doesn't matter what age Mapuche is in. It doesn't matter if it's an early or late era. It's not limited by the type of war or whose territory it is. There's just nothing that limits or counters it, and honestly in a golden age isn't going to be worth having Mapuche as a neighbor much of the time. Given all that, +10 is just...absurd.

I have to question how this got past the dev's balance team. And I suspect the answer is, there just isn't much of a standard in terms of balance.

There are many interesting combat abilities that can be given to a civ. Giving a civ a sweeping combat bonus is one of the worst things to do with a civ. This stacks the deck too much.

It is not broken, far from it. You cannot choose your neighbours being in GA at your will, nor can you engineer it. I don't think typing in bold red letters helps your cause.

Kicking out all your troops from the territory of a freshly liberated city state and your new vassal is indeed broken though. Civ V got the sequence of events right in the end. Is there hope for Civ VI as well?

Spoiler :

 

[steveg700]

I don't think typing in bold red letters helps your cause.

The red text doesn't have to help the cause beyond drawing attention to a statement that will be self-evident to the reasonable. I'm content to let others appear insightful by providing a compelling counter-argument or appear obtuse by disputing prima facie evidence.

Your response of "it isn't broken, far from it" does not move the needle any more than selecting a font color.

You cannot choose your neighbours being in GA at your will, nor can you engineer it.

How does that act as any kind of balance? It creates lopsided feast-or-famine situations, sure, but "lopsided" and "balanced" aren't synonyms. A civ doesn't need to engineer a situation that isn't uncommon, certainly not when there's an entire era to press the advantage, and the other civ will have an entire era to watch units of equal strength be crushed. +10 is pretty overwhelming.

Yup, but it's still a limitation. That means it hardly qualifies as 'broken' or 'absurd'.

It does when the bonus is that large. +10 is basically a unit from future eras.

If you haven't been in a situation where you've observed it (from either side), then the "limitation" that you have to wait for the opponent to trigger perhaps does sound like something subsntantive...on a paper level.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

That's the entire point of Mapuche: they are really powerful against golden age civs. If you guy the +10, you pretty much cut at the premise of the civ.

 

[steveg700]

That's the entire point of Mapuche: they are really powerful against golden age civs. If you guy the +10, you pretty much cut at the premise of the civ.

Even allowing for that to be the only asset the Mapuche have, that doesn't really address whether it's broken or not. Again, it suggests lopsidedness, not balance.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Given its extremely limited, luck-dependent nature, I just don't see how it is broken.

 

[steveg700]

Given its extremely limited, luck-dependent nature, I just don't see how it is broken.

Re: "Extremely limited"....Are you suggesting that golden ages are particularly rare? Or that having to use an ability opportunistically constitutes an extreme limitation, even if the opportunity isn't rare?

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

It is limited to 1/3 of the ages, which your opponents are not guaranteed to hit. If I am going to be limited as to when I can take advantage of the major feature of my Civ, the bonus had better be worth it.

 

[Arithmion]

Question with the intention of defusing the situation: Does Mapuche's Golden age bonus apply to heroics as well?

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Question with the intention of defusing the situation: Does Mapuche's Golden age bonus apply to heroics as well?

Yes.

 

[steveg700]

It is limited to 1/3 of the ages, which your opponents are not guaranteed to hit. If I am going to be limited as to when I can take advantage of the major feature of my Civ, the bonus had better be worth it.

Seems like more of an argument that the Mapuche are brokenly lopsided than any kind of validation of them balanced. If they have only one feature to attract a player, but it's an "extremely feature" which "merely" allows the civ to crush others like paper mache when they foolishly enter a golden age.

Having used Lataro's loyalty debuff though, I would say it is actually a very powerful ability in its own right, and indeed it's particularly powerful when civ's *aren't* in a golden age. So, win/win.

Question with the intention of defusing the situation: Does Mapuche's Golden age bonus apply to heroics as well?

Yes, so in actually it's not 1/3 of the ages, but technically half of them. Heroic ages aren't too common, but I likewise argue that golden ages aren't uncommon, and Mapuche can get their money's worth without the bonus needing to be so hefty. And if their rivals aren't getting golden ages, it is again a win/win for the Mapuche.

The whole thing reeks of kind of questionable execution, but a flat +10 is just too much to give to all units for an entire era. Certainly at the earlier eras, when units have strengths in the twenties and thirties. Far better that it scale in some fashion. Heck, why not a percentile bonus?

As for defusing, appreciate the thought but don't worry about it too much. People can have discussions, even heated ones, without turning toxic. Heck, I'd like to proven wrong, but I don't think it's possible here. It's only possible for some people to be okay with a civ being able to overwhelm it's neighbors as long as they can only do it opportunistically.

 

[Chefofrats]

If Lautaro is broken, even more so is Shaka with his super-early, medieval corps of increased strength. They have no counter at all, if Shaka is not lagging behind technologically by an era or more. And this superiority is not based on the unpredictable golden age factor. So is Shaka broken? The consensus in the domination victory elimination thread was that he is not, because to use his corps he has to survive to the medieval era, and he has no special tools to do so. Basically, if a very strong mechanic comes with limitations, it may not be considered broken. This is why Gran Colombia really is broken, since it is very easy to get their stacking generals early and keep using them for the whole game - and not only with a combat strength bonus but also with a movement one.

 

[acluewithout]

Mapuche’s combat bonus v Golden Ages and loyalty flipping is really misconceived. You may have bonus v Civs in a Golden Age, but their Golden Age loyalty bonuses makes conquest incredibly hard (cities just flip back) and the hurdle for Loyalty flipping is too high. And Jesus, even if you flip a City, that will just spawn current era Barbarians which will wreck your army.

Mapuche’s abilities would work much, much , much better as Pantheon, Dark Age Cards and or World Wonder abilities. I’d love to face down Mongolia with a +10 v Golden Ages.

Anyway. Don’t really want to get dragged into the energetic discussion above. Just thought I’d put that out there...

 

[criZp]

Given its extremely limited, luck-dependent nature, I just don't see how it is broken.

It's absolutely not luck dependent, unless your opponent is gonna avoid golden ages all game then you will be getting the bonus. Why do you people think the ability only works if the opponent enters a golden age in the classical era and not later?

 

[Drivingrevilo]

Perhaps if people wish to continue this particular Lautaro-centred chat/debate, a new thread should be set up to discuss it. We're rather getting off track from Victoria's initial question, I feel.

 

[Arithmion]

-snip-

Yes, so in actually it's not 1/3 of the ages, but technically half of them. Heroic ages aren't too common, but I likewise argue that golden ages aren't uncommon.

-snip-

As for defusing, appreciate the thought but don't worry about it too much. People can have discussions, even heated ones, without turning toxic. Heck, I'd like to proven wrong, but I don't think it's possible here. It's only possible for some people to be okay with a civ being able to overwhelm it's neighbors as long as they can only do it opportunistically.

Yeah, my "defusal" might have been overkill. I had just been reading the exploits thread, which was also starting to take a turn.

And I've been thinking about the math above, and I think it's still 1/3 in concept, because you cannot be eligible to get a golden age at the same time that you are eligible to get a heroic age. Hooray for mutual exclusivity. Though I do completely agree with you that it's much more complicated than that, since pulling off a heroic age doesn't happen much.

Moving again to what is still broken:

Spoiler :

You can't accept... free money?

 

[criZp]

I think that might be intentional? That they don't always take your bribes if they don't like you?

 

[MrRadar]

Your response of "it isn't broken, far from it" does not move the needle any more than selecting a font color.

Fair enough. It so happens, I'm playing a Mapuche game right now, started it before I saw this line of thought.

Re: "Extremely limited"....Are you suggesting that golden ages are particularly rare? Or that having to use an ability opportunistically constitutes an extreme limitation, even if the opportunity isn't rare?

Let's see then:

Spoiler :

Then you just wait, and eventually your time will come.

The wait may be long, though.
For full disclosure, I'm posting full screenshots below, from which this collation was made. In the minimap you'll see the geo situation.

Classical:

Spoiler :

Medieval:

Spoiler :

Rennaissance:

Spoiler :

Industrial:

Spoiler :

While in Classical on Deity many AIs get the Golden, not always you can attack the entire known world. In my case I got not too wonderful a start, and got declared by Alex while still on two cities. I was so lucky he declared while in Golden, so I could hold onto my expo, just barely, and entirely thanks to Mapuche ability. But I had to end the war in later eras already, the last two cities took an eternity to take, Alex kept caravels in them.

In the meanwhile my eastern front was entertained by two triggered barb camps. Corvinus has only four cities not because he was lazy. So attacking Norway in Medieval was not in my wildest dreams. Renaissance, Egypt. I'm not sure if my geopolitics dictates me to take Egypt asap. Industrial - well, I will wait for the eventuality, I guess. I've advanced only so far in the game for the moment.

If you haven't been in a situation where you've observed it (from either side), then the "limitation" that you have to wait for the opponent to trigger perhaps does sound like something subsntantive...on a paper level.

Are you sure you've observed this on a very consistent basis, to justify the 'broken' claim, and it was not one, two or three cases that left very vivid impression in your memory? Other cases just being forgotten?
From my above example I see no justification to claim Mapuche's +10 cs against golden age civs 'extremely broken'. Situationally strong, I'd say. I admit, that's just but one game, very insufficient to make a generalization.

 

[UWHabs]

Moderator Action: Quote deleted as requested by member. leif

You can get droughts obviously if you clear all the forests, but definitely doesn't feel like there's enough impact there. Similarly, I feel that it's just way too easy to clear jungle and marshlands. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure we did not have the technology back in 2000 BC to clearcut rainforest and build large cities or farms or settlements in the area. If you basically made it impossible to clear jungles until you got to at least engineering, that might really change the game too.

 

[steveg700]

The wait may be long, though.

For those who have to endure the +10 directed against them, an era is certainly a long time.

Are you sure you've observed this on a very consistent basis, to justify the 'broken' claim, and it was not one, two or three cases that left very vivid impression in your memory? Other cases just being forgotten?
From my above example I see no justification to claim Mapuche's +10 cs against golden age civs 'extremely broken'. Situationally strong, I'd say. I admit, that's just but one game, very insufficient to make a generalization.

I don't know how well you made use of the ability in that one game, but I also don't think it needs to take twenty games to know something broken is happening. Inconsistently broken is still broken. It's back to the issue of lopsidedness being conflated with balance, which is apparently a tough conceptual nut to crack.