The Huns & Spain need to be patched!

[vanzlmalc]

I disagree with the OP. Civ 5 is not meant to be balanced, it's all about and how to make the best out of a random situation. The starting position alone can give a player a huge advantage. Unique abilities, units and buildings only make the random factor even stronger.

Edit:
I should get used to checking the OP date

 

[pilot00]

Let me ask something:

I have been playing a hotseat game, and I had Carthage.
Turn 10 I hit Eldorado and get my 500 gold. Rush buy a settler. My opponet quits.

Is Carthage overpowered because of it?

Spains ability is a gamble. You are either set for life or its completely useless.
Spains true power is using its UUs. Both the Conquistador and the Tertio are excellent units on the offense but both are mid game units. Definitely not over the top.

The Huns are a battering ram civ. Seriously kill those first and its over. Once their horse archers and the Rams are out-teched the Huns are taken out of the picture. They can still troll you by having New York as a settled city but....who cares?

 

[Jerman]

They can still troll you by having New York as a settled city but....who cares?

Except when they troll even harder and found your hometown of Santa Cruz, which is in Washington's name pool.

 

[pilot00]

Except when they troll even harder and found your hometown of Santa Cruz, which is in Washington's name pool.

Well, that doesnt make it a decent UA either though

 

[Jerman]

Well, that doesnt make it a decent UA either though

No but I do use it to see who's in game.

 

[TheHanzou]

El Dorado is pretty broken in Multiplayer, its just a random win for whoever discoveres it first.

spain turn every Wonder into el Dorado. I think that says it all.

Obviously not in FFA Games, but 1vs1 or 2vs2? Pretty dumb.

 

[ellgieff]

So because the Huns and Spain are so broken, they're the only Civs anyone ever plays in Multiplayer?

I'm asking because I don't play multiplayer at all, so I have no information to go on.

 

[Jerman]

So because the Huns and Spain are so broken, they're the only Civs anyone ever plays in Multiplayer?

I'm asking because I don't play multiplayer at all, so I have no information to go on.

Alot of people kick anyone who pick the Huns in a match. IDK about Spain though.

 

[azzaman333]

The problem with Spain is you're effectively rolling some dice to decide whether or not you win. Find the Great Barrier Reef early, buy a settler and a worker, and you're in a dominant position through no skill of your own, you just happened to strike it rich with NWs.

The Huns are a bit different since they have the insanely powerful Rams regardless, so they're a huge threat early game no matter what, but the problems really emerge when the starting warrior pops an upgrade hut and becomes a t5 ram.

 

[ellgieff]

Alot of people kick anyone who pick the Huns in a match. IDK about Spain though.

OK, thanks. That doesn't mean the Huns are actually broken and need a nerf, though - it just means people don't like playing against them.

Genuinely broken, IMO, would mean that the only sensible choice is to pick that Civ yourself - or play the one Civ that can beat it.

Unless either of those things are true requesting the nerfstick or banhammer seem over the top to me. Although, again for clarity, I'm basing my opinion on the way metagames develop in meat-multiplayer games like Magic: The Gathering and haven't played multiplayer in this game.

The problem with Spain is you're effectively rolling some dice to decide whether or not you win. Find the Great Barrier Reef early, buy a settler and a worker, and you're in a dominant position through no skill of your own, you just happened to strike it rich with NWs.

Again, thanks. But is it an insurmountable dominant position?

The other aspect here is that playing that way is (or should be, IMO) entirely the opponent's choice. Again, my experience is with things like Magic. I'm a dirty combo deck player (Johnny) - many people level the "no skill of your own" accusation at the combo deck when it goes off. The thing is that they don't tend to notice when the combo deck doesn't go off, or at least they attribute the win in that case to their own skill.

See also: Confirmation Bias, the Dunning-Kruger effect and the Self-Confirming Attribution Error.

 

[Falconiano]

Spain: It's such a gamble that it doesn't matter. Chances of them getting 500g are low at best.
Even when they do it's not remotely an auto-win, since they don't have anything else to rely on while your civ does.

Huns: If you happen to settle anywhere near huns just prioritize military, and possibly build horses.
Hun rush ain't that hard to counter unless you didn't prepare for it (which you should, since you found them while scouting).


Persian rush is more effective, reliable, and likely to succeed than both, I'm surprised you have no qualms with them if you consider spain/huns OP.

 

[azzaman333]

Again, thanks. But is it an insurmountable dominant position

Insurmountable? Probably not. But say you're in a 6 player game, where everyone was equally good. It'd probably lift your chances of winning from 1 in 6 to 1 in 2 or greater, solely because you happened to be lucky enough to find the right national wonder.

 

[azzaman333]

Huns: If you happen to settle anywhere near huns just prioritize military, and possibly build horses.
Hun rush ain't that hard to counter unless you didn't prepare for it (which you should, since you found them while scouting).

How are you going to stop a hut popped Ram at turn 5?

 

[Browd]

How are you going to stop a hut popped Ram at turn 5?

Block it with your warrior and scout, and kill it with city fire?

 

[pilot00]

OK, thanks. That doesn't mean the Huns are actually broken and need a nerf, though - it just means people don't like playing against them.

Genuinely broken, IMO, would mean that the only sensible choice is to pick that Civ yourself - or play the one Civ that can beat it.

Unless either of those things are true requesting the nerfstick or banhammer seem over the top to me. Although, again for clarity, I'm basing my opinion on the way metagames develop in meat-multiplayer games like Magic: The Gathering and haven't played multiplayer in this game.



Again, thanks. But is it an insurmountable dominant position?

The other aspect here is that playing that way is (or should be, IMO) entirely the opponent's choice. Again, my experience is with things like Magic. I'm a dirty combo deck player (Johnny) - many people level the "no skill of your own" accusation at the combo deck when it goes off. The thing is that they don't tend to notice when the combo deck doesn't go off, or at least they attribute the win in that case to their own skill.

See also: Confirmation Bias, the Dunning-Kruger effect and the Self-Confirming Attribution Error.

Spains parameters on becoming over the top are so many that they are rendered mute, or you are so lucky that you might as well try to win a lottery after the match.
You need to find one of the broken NWs first, you need to find it close to you (close been a location where you can use it sub turn 50) and you it to be one of the good ones. Add to this that most of the NWs start adjacent to CS territory or in bad locations and you get the point. If you find a NW first even, Eldorado at turn 150+
its a waste because by the time in essence you will be working a good tile. Their bonuses matter only at the early start. No Spain is not that broken. Its broken only if you can win the lottery. I have won the lottery with many other civs. Are they all broken? No they aren't and there is no reason to ban Spain from the game. If anything the one ho finds the best ruins in the early game is getting more bonuses than Spain finding a NW.

Huns: If you happen to settle anywhere near huns just prioritize military, and possibly build horses.
Hun rush ain't that hard to counter unless you didn't prepare for it (which you should, since you found them while scouting).


Persian rush is more effective, reliable, and likely to succeed than both, I'm surprised you have no qualms with them if you consider spain/huns OP.

Quoted for truth. A few mobile units and some melee and those rams are mute.

To Darius defense, he rarely pushes on war. That guy is plagued by indecision on what to do at any given time. Napoleon or Alex are worse IMHO.

Insurmountable? Probably not. But say you're in a 6 player game, where everyone was equally good. It'd probably lift your chances of winning from 1 in 6 to 1 in 2 or greater, solely because you happened to be lucky enough to find the right national wonder.

Just like finding a succession of good ruins in the first 20 turns. Or an Ideal Petra location.

 

[mitsho]

The lottery with Spain is a big problem, but as others point out, that can happen with othe civs as well. The difference is that Spain lacks a strategy. Either you're lucky and you can buy that extra settler, or you don't. What's there left for tactics and timing? It's not a race to the scientific techs as with Babylon, REXing as with the Mayans or rushing for conquest as with the Mongols. It may be fun once to get that bonus and go nuts with it, but it has little replay value in my mind. I hope you see my point even if I'm not that good at making it. But let's go the other way round, a compelling gameplay for Spain would imho be something like the following:

Extra Yields from conquering City States, Natural Wonders have double yields.

It has a synergy (NW are often found with City States), and it makes you build a empire around the globe when you're snipping for those city states. It's also not an automatic bonus as you need to do something with it.

 

[pilot00]

You are left with 2 pretty good units that synergize fantastically with one another and with siege weapons. Use them to their intended purpose

The UA might be a gamble but the units are very good.