Taking Requests: Fixing crappy civs

[Evalis]

So I already finished up with Suleiman. It may require a bit of refinement, but I think he's a contender now ^^

In any case I'm looking to touch up a few of the underpowered civs and I would like unique suggestions.. not just editing a UU or UB. Something that would be similar to a trait of some sort.. Note that some things cannot be done, (it has to be a function that already exists) but just fire away, and I'll see what I can do. Sleepy time now though. Good Gaming!

 

[Omega124]

I like the Zero as is, but I think they removed a very important aspect of the Zero, a bonus to naval units. The Zero was stronger than any aircraft until late into the war, which is accurately represented with a bonus to aircraft. However, it was a extremely efficient fighter-bomber when it came to navy units (Pearl Harbour, anyone?).

However, for change (,real change), I'd like to see an Iroquois change. Warpath is extremely awesome, until you realise it only works inside your territory. Am I the only one whom thinks that completely ruins the point of the Warpath, both game-wise and historically? If Forest Roads in all territory or even just friendly/neutral territory is too much, maybe units should have a bonus to attack if they are attacking from or into forest, perhaps getting it twice if both titles have it.

 

[Shiggs713]

when many people think of the Zero, they think of kamikaze. When they did kamikaze, all they really did was kill themselves, it was very ineffective, in most cases they did not even damage the ship. They just couldn't reach the terminal velocity required to do real damage.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I like the Zero as is, but I think they removed a very important aspect of the Zero, a bonus to naval units. The Zero was stronger than any aircraft until late into the war, which is accurately represented with a bonus to aircraft. However, it was a extremely efficient fighter-bomber when it came to navy units (Pearl Harbour, anyone?).

That's... not how it was. The Zeroes were primarily in charge of air superiority, and occasional strafing, during the attack on Pearl Harbor, but they didn't bomb anything. The ground attacks were mainly carried out by Nakajima B5N "Kate" torpedo/dive bombers and Aichi D3A "Val" dive bombers.

 

[Antilogic]

I like the Zero as is, but I think they removed a very important aspect of the Zero, a bonus to naval units. The Zero was stronger than any aircraft until late into the war, which is accurately represented with a bonus to aircraft. However, it was a extremely efficient fighter-bomber when it came to navy units (Pearl Harbour, anyone?).

The Zero goes down in history as one of the most overrated aircraft of all time; there were a number of critical flaws (no armor, only a 2/2 armament with limited ammo, no self-sealing fuel tanks, problems turning left in a dive so Americans could predict where it could fly and gun it down, I could go on). It was surpassed quickly by the Hellcat, introduced in late 1942/early 1943. Considering the Pacific War vs. the US started at the end of 1941, it had roughly a year of relative advantage.

 

[Abremms]

i just played around with your better Suleiman mod, i like it. I've been trying to figure out a way to institute new traits for existing civs through a free building, but i didn't think to add the technology, well done.

What can you do with America? I had wanted to implement a trait where their production increases 20% when another civ declares war on them, but i think we need the DLL for that. American UU's are good, but their trait is dissapointing

also, for the Japanese, what if instead of a Zero they had a Yamato class battleship? "the vessels of the class were the heaviest and most heavily-armed battleships ever constructed. The class carried the largest naval artillery ever fitted to a warship, nine 460-millimetre (18.1 in) naval guns, each capable of firing 2,998-pound (1,360 kg) shells over 26 miles (42 km)."

not sure what sort of special ability to give it... though the article says one was converted to a carrier mid construction... let them carry a single fighter or bomber? would probably be fine with just hitting harder and being tougher to sink than a normal BS though.

 

[Antilogic]

Actually, I don't have the game yet and was just browsing after a couple weeks of inactivity.

Giving any sort of aircraft to the Yamato and Musashi doesn't make sense--when these ships went to sea to fight, they were pure battleships. If you are looking for a mixed carrier-battleship, you are better off looking at the Hyuga and Ise refits, although the ships were pretty ineffective as far as I can tell (Wiki). The Yamato was a 2-of-a-kind ship, and had some serious problems as well. Although it had long-range heavy caliber guns, it had in general pretty poor secondary systems: didn't have the good radar-targeting systems the American Iowa-class had, poor anti-aircraft defense, stuff like that. In reality, the Yamato was a good ship of the line for the 1930's mentality, but the Japanese could not keep her up to date with the rapidly-changing times. There's a pretty good site by what I assume is an amateur history buff comparing the WW2 battleships (Battleship Comparison).

 

[Abremms]

Actually, I don't have the game yet and was just browsing after a couple weeks of inactivity.

Giving any sort of aircraft to the Yamato and Musashi doesn't make sense--when these ships went to sea to fight, they were pure battleships. If you are looking for a mixed carrier-battleship, you are better off looking at the Hyuga and Ise refits, although the ships were pretty ineffective as far as I can tell (Wiki). The Yamato was a 2-of-a-kind ship, and had some serious problems as well. Although it had long-range heavy caliber guns, it had in general pretty poor secondary systems: didn't have the good radar-targeting systems the American Iowa-class had, poor anti-aircraft defense, stuff like that. In reality, the Yamato was a good ship of the line for the 1930's mentality, but the Japanese could not keep her up to date with the rapidly-changing times. There's a pretty good site by what I assume is an amateur history buff comparing the WW2 battleships (Battleship Comparison).

lol, i just plucked out something that might make a good UU for the game, browsed an article and made a suggestion. I'm not overly concerned with actual history in this case, I'm more interested in good gameplay. I'm sure that with an afternoons googling you could find compelling arguments against every UU and UB included in the stock game, and certainly against anything that modders might add. gameplay is more important, imo.

 

[Evalis]

I am also disappointed with warpath. Unfortunately it is hard coded. It would be pretty easy to give them all doublemove in forests. It's doubtful that you could only give them this trait outside of friendly territory, but I can look into it. I like the idea for america.. also not sure if this is possible, but I'll browse to see if there is a work around. As a side note have you tried playing them with the monarchy policy?

 

[Antilogic]

lol, i just plucked out something that might make a good UU for the game, browsed an article and made a suggestion. I'm not overly concerned with actual history in this case, I'm more interested in good gameplay. I'm sure that with an afternoons googling you could find compelling arguments against every UU and UB included in the stock game, and certainly against anything that modders might add. gameplay is more important, imo.

Why would a ship without a flight deck, hangers, or aircraft munitions be able to launch a squadron of fighters or bombers? There's a line between fudging game numbers for good gameplay and a flat-out fabrication, don't you think?

Even if it isn't a perfect representation of history, and we all know Civ isn't, I'd say make it believable.

 

[Abremms]

Why would a ship without a flight deck, hangers, or aircraft munitions be able to launch a squadron of fighters or bombers? There's a line between fudging game numbers for good gameplay and a flat-out fabrication, don't you think?

Even if it isn't a perfect representation of history, and we all know Civ isn't, I'd say make it believable.

meh, i think it would make a fun mechanic.

 

[SolkaTruesilver]

There is a list of lower-tier civs you can pick up. I don't remember who rates there, however.

 

[AbbieRevo]

While I like the idea of a unique Battleship for Nippon, one could by no stretch of the imagination call Japan a crappy civ. That UA is just too awesome.

I don't know what your Ottoman mod did, so I can't comment on that, though they are certainly a "crappy" civ in vanilla

And I haven't actually played as USA yet, but they do seem like they could use a little spiffing up (which is why I haven't played them yet).

So, allow me to come up with some ideas off the top of my head on how to fix them.

One idea, is to replace the B-17 with a unique bank or stock exchange, to represent US dominance in the financial markets (current troubles non-withstanding).

Maybe the stock exchange gives +50% instead of +33%, with another little buff, like an extra specialist slot or something.

Or a reworked UA, maybe "American Exceptionalism" -10% (or more) to the cost of new social policies, +10% (or more) influence from cash gifts to city states?

Or change Manifest Destiny to something like "+25% Production when building Settlers and Workers"

 

[Evalis]

I never seen the following two civs in my games: Ottoman, Aztec. They always seem to start on another island and simply get crushed. I actually see Hiawatha quite a lot, and he is always doing well.. While I dislike their mechanic, perhaps their UU and UB make up for it. America could use some tweaks to their UUs but the change is so minor that I'd rather look for something else. Consequently the two original options presented seem either out of my league, or simply not available until the dll code opens.

@Abbie America's trait isn't terrible or anything, I just liked abremms idea ;P. I think most people overlook that it stacks in a linear fashion with monarchy (for 25% tile costs) twice as cheap as anyone else, and four times as cheap for people ignoring tiles from purchasing (yes I know that sounds funny). The +1 sight is useless for the AI, but a huge benefit for a human player. What you are proposing is actually significantly worse >.>

Where can I find this list of weak civs?

 

[pduthie_au]

Actually, I don't have the game yet and was just browsing after a couple weeks of inactivity.

Giving any sort of aircraft to the Yamato and Musashi doesn't make sense--when these ships went to sea to fight, they were pure battleships. If you are looking for a mixed carrier-battleship, you are better off looking at the Hyuga and Ise refits, although the ships were pretty ineffective as far as I can tell (Wiki). The Yamato was a 2-of-a-kind ship, and had some serious problems as well. Although it had long-range heavy caliber guns, it had in general pretty poor secondary systems: didn't have the good radar-targeting systems the American Iowa-class had, poor anti-aircraft defense, stuff like that. In reality, the Yamato was a good ship of the line for the 1930's mentality, but the Japanese could not keep her up to date with the rapidly-changing times. There's a pretty good site by what I assume is an amateur history buff comparing the WW2 battleships (Battleship Comparison).

Actually, there was a third Yamato-class hull - it was converted to Shinano which had it survived it's maiden voyage (it was sunk by an American Sub less than 24 hours into it) was capable of carrying 120 aircraft and was the largest carrier built until the Forrestal class was launched 10 years later.

 

[Antilogic]

Actually, there was a third Yamato-class hull - it was converted to Shinano which had it survived it's maiden voyage (it was sunk by an American Sub less than 24 hours into it) was capable of carrying 120 aircraft and was the largest carrier built until the Forrestal class was launched 10 years later.

While I'm aware of the Shinano, it was a pure carrier and not a hybrid carrier-battleship, which is what we were discussing above. That was some terrible luck, though--they really should have swept for submarines or sent some more escorting ships for their new hulk. Or not refit so many planes for kamikaze duty so they could scout for subs and carry depth charges.

 

[AbbieRevo]

@Abbie America's trait isn't terrible or anything, I just liked abremms idea ;P. I think most people overlook that it stacks in a linear fashion with monarchy (for 25% tile costs) twice as cheap as anyone else, and four times as cheap for people ignoring tiles from purchasing (yes I know that sounds funny). The +1 sight is useless for the AI, but a huge benefit for a human player. What you are proposing is actually significantly worse >.>

Where can I find this list of weak civs?

How about +100% Production for Settlers and Workers? Though I see what you mean about the monarchy thing. A lot of Civs seem to have traits that seem weak by themselves, but become awesome when paired with a certain SP or Wonder.

And as far as the "American Exceptionalism" goes, I feel like even 20% off of SPs would be huge, but 10% wouldn't be enough, thus the slight (possibly needs a little more boost) bonus to cash influence on City States, which also works synergistically with the SP discount. Maybe 10% for the SPs, +25% for the City states,(which would turn awesome when paired with the SP that also boosts influence)

Another idea I had, how about replacing the B-17 with the CAG, a fighter with +100% vs Naval units?

Or, replace the Stealth Bomber with the Predator Drone. Which would be cheaper, with a big evasion bonus (cause they're so small).

 

[Dave Lawson]

Now take this with a grain of salt, as I haven't played a real game with them.

The Aztec ability seems completely underwhelming. 3 culture per kill is not horrible for the first policy, but completely worthless once you have 5 cities. It may be that this bonus scales up as you enter later eras -- I gave up on it long before getting that far, in which case simply a higher value might work. If it doesn't scale up, in some way, it is crap.

I love the idea of the ability, but when you compare it to the French's somewhat equivalent UA, it becomes little more than a joke. Even given a small empire of just three cities, the Aztecs would need to be killing two units per turn to keep up with the French. Sure, you might say that the french ability becomes obsolete later in the game, but to be blunt, the Aztec ability begins the game obsolete.

 

[Evalis]

I agree with the aztecs.. Though it does scale with higher tier units it doesn't scale enough.. the primary problem is that their bonus only works when they are =winning=. But they have nothing which helps them win.. their UU isn't that good, since hilariously enough it is also required to win to gain any advantage. I'm looking for ideas though. I want them to be a warrior type race. Hmmm.. perhaps I could give them a bonus to production for land units.

 

[Cincinnatus C.]

I've always wanted America to be better, especially in an expansionistic sort of way - "manifest destiny" as an ability doesn't really help that too much, strangely

So here's a UU I've been thinking about, replacing probably the B17 which isn't especially useful-

Pioneer
Replaces Settler
2 move
Ignores terrain movement cost
Can defend itself (scout strength)
Gets scout vision increase
+1 or +2 movement when embarked, possibly after the discovery of a certain tech

This would make early expansion and colonization much less painful and dangerous.