The Huns & Spain need to be patched!

[pspboy7]

Personally speaking, I find this topic of OP civs a little tiring. It is perhaps another example of a person taking his or her grief out on a few civs that had a hayday in their last game. If you take a closer look at the game, I'm sure most of us will find that the differences in each civs strategy and gameplay makes this game more interesting than just making them so similar to each other that they become mediocre.

Just saying...

 

[bossss123]

Personally speaking, I find this topic of OP civs a little tiring. It is perhaps another example of a person taking his or her grief out on a few civs that had a hayday in their last game. If you take a closer look at the game, I'm sure most of us will find that the differences in each civs strategy and gameplay makes this game more interesting than just making them so similar to each other that they become mediocre.

Just saying...

Well first dont read it if you fin it tiring. This has nothing to do with how a Civ did in their last game. Most of the intelligent posters told you in detail why these two Civs were unbalanced for multiplayer.

 

[Miravlix]

Spain is overpowered, yes. But more importantly, it's hit or miss. If you get +1000 in the first few turns, you may as well stop playing, as you've won. That's probably the easiest way to beat Deity...

Thats the difference between Deity and the other levels, anything below Deity and the player should win 100% of the time no matter if they get good or bad dice rolls.

On Deity you can actually get bad dice rolls that you can't overcome to win and you can get good dice rolls that make it easier to win, that a Deity feature and has nothing to do with Spain, you can get lucky games with all the civs.

 

[PhilBowles]

Okay, rolled a random civ in my multiplayer (Ice Age map, standard size, Prince) today - and just by chance I happened to be the Huns. The game's now most of the way through and I'm score leader having taken many cities early. This is my experience so far:

I had an ideal starting location - a large island with me, two other civs (both AIs) and two city-states. Not sure what game speed, but everything was cheaper than I"m used to in single-player (scout produced in 3 turns, teching very fast), which clearly benefits the early rush a lot and was something I hadn't factored in.

My army came together very quickly - by the time I had two rams and two HAs, as well as my faithful Warrior and the Honor opener GG, I was on the march towards Washington. Before turn 60 the island was mine, with the Hunnic cities of Washington, Edinburgh, Warsaw and Lhasa (and soon after a couple of newly-settled cities, as a lot of space was unused and there were exploitable resources and good production sites). This felt overpowered while I was doing it - but this was on Prince, against AIs that weren't garrisoning their cities that early and had no defenders (Washington had a spearman in a position to attack an HA but never used it; the cities themselves kept firing at HAs rather than rams), and I haven't tried similar rushes with other early-game civs for comparison.

Needing to develop Optics before continuing my rampage stalled me, but it turned out the closest landmass had only three cities: Monaco, Zanzibar and Tyre. As these were AIs and Tyre and Zanzibar were both mercantile, I decided to continue the rush. HAs were starting to lose effectiveness, but I eventually took Monaco and, within my new borders, could upgrade the rams to trebuchets (which of course left me light on melee units to actually take cities). The rush was definitely over after Zanzibar fell - in fact I ended up losing my army (including my faithful Warrior, now a Longswordsman, and an almost fully-promoted HA) in the abortive attack on Tyre, which only fell after I rebuilt and supported my attack with Privateers.

For a start I overextended. The early units were punishing on my economy, so I gained gold slowly (and soon ran out of nearby city-states to bully - I should have kept one or two as my banks), which meant late courthouses (I still have a couple of puppeted cities in the late 18th Century - the badly-placed Monaco, and I think one other), and struggles with unhappiness as well as long puppet periods hampered growth for the cities without wheat or sea resources (everywhere else was plains, desert or tundra, and I have only one river in my territory). Warsaw was my third city and is still pop 3; I can't usefully maintain it at any higher level (it does have to devote one pop to Mt Fuji, admittedly).

Overall, my experience has been much what I'd have expected and what I've argued, and as others have reported. In this case the Hun golden age lasted longer than I'd expected (into the early Renaissance), and having so many early cities - even if some were low-pop - kept me in the lead technologically for a while. But I now find myself in the lead scorewise (by about 150 points) in the 18th Century, yet without any obvious win condition I can go for. I lost out on the science wonders and have fallen behind technologically; I'm generating respectable culture but far too little to transition to that victory. City-states are naturally wary around me, although not yet at a point where I can't bribe them back - still I'm too far behind technologically to have a realistic shot at getting the UN. And domination is going to be hampered when up against two technologically superior human players at a point when none of the Hunnic advantages (other than a production bonus that very slightly helps Attila's Court - already a fantastic production city - to have marginally higher production) give me any edge in warfare. (EDIT: Oh yes, and this is the point where it's probably worth mentioning that one of said human players is Japan).

This is given a pretty much perfect start for the Huns in multiplayer, where I started the game paired with exactly enough cities for my early rush to take, all controlled by AI opponents who wouldn't be able to do anything to stall my early advance, and plenty of time (and a generally peaceful player group) to capitalise on my early captures. Certainly I could have played better in terms of capitalising on that early advantage, but even there - against other humans, and in a situation where victory over the AI would be automatic (Harun, the surviving AI, is trailing the three of us in everything and is around 300 points behind the weakest human player) - early Hun games really don't translate into a strong Hun late game, let alone a victory.

 

[Karmah]

The huns are no problem to me. They have a strong early rush but can be countered. If you didn t scout and discover they were your neighbour and adapt accordingly , then it is your fault. They can punish most early game OP combo , that s their role. It s fine.

Spain however is stupid in terms of MP game.But can be disabled so ....
But yeah ,the worst game design in term of balance is a gambling ability , it only creates frustrations. If you are lucky , your opponent is frustrated , if you are not , you are frustrated. No real strategy is involved , nothing to adapt to , just pure luck with OP results for either you or your direct opponents.Then again , Spain can and has to be disabled in MP.

 

[steveg700]

Okay, rolled a random civ in my multiplayer (Ice Age map, standard size, Prince) today - and just by chance I happened to be the Huns. The game's now most of the way through and I'm score leader having taken many cities early. This is my experience so far:

I had an ideal starting location - a large island with me, two other civs (both AIs) and two city-states. Not sure what game speed, but everything was cheaper than I"m used to in single-player (scout produced in 3 turns, teching very fast), which clearly benefits the early rush a lot and was something I hadn't factored in.

Well, if you're finishing units more quickly, that means you're playing at a faster setting, and that actually doesn't favor a character who wants everyone to linger in the ancient era as long as possible.

 

[PhilBowles]

Well, if you're finishing units more quickly, that means you're playing at a faster setting, and that actually doesn't favor a character who wants everyone to linger in the ancient era as long as possible.

"Lingering" in the ancient era doesn't do anything to help Attila particularly - he needs to win the game as much as the next civ, and that means development. Especially since he has a fairly immediate need to reach the Classical Era himself (Mathematics = Courthouses).

In this game Attila was way ahead in the ancient era - he didn't need any help from other civs lingering there. His problem is effectively transitioning into the later game.

People have mentioned HAs remaining strong into the late game - but that's with reference to field engagements, and the rules don't apply against cities, where your avenues of attack are restricted so that you can usually only have three or four in position as well as melee units that can attack, and they simply don't do meaningful damage to post-Classical cities, even in numbers, as well as being rather fragile. However, Civ games are won by taking cities (as a warmonger at least, or when going for any victory that involves obtaining production, science, culture etc. boosts through conquest of choice targets), it's not a tactical wargame and unless your enemy has problems replacing lost units (which later in the game will only happen if they haven't developed good production or economic cities, or they take very heavy losses), games are not won or lost in open combat.

Battering rams turn into ranged units and the Huns don't have any early-game melee units that are likely to effectively transition into city attackers unless they invest heavily in Warriors early on.

None of this poses difficulty because the game transitions into the later eras too quickly - it happens because sooner or later you have to transition into the later eras if you want to win the game, and the Huns are very poorly-equipped for doing so.

 

[ossi]

In the meantime the spanish bonus seems to be reduced from 500 to 250! At least at marathon speed this is totally UNDER-powered compared to Askia who gets 450 (Settler) or 225 (Deity) for destroying a barbs camp! And there are just finite many natural wonders which you even have to find first, but infinite many camps! So please, Firaxis, at least apply the speed modifier to the wonder-finding bonus of spain!

 

[Lyoncet]

"Lingering" in the ancient era doesn't do anything to help Attila particularly - he needs to win the game as much as the next civ, and that means development. Especially since he has a fairly immediate need to reach the Classical Era himself (Mathematics = Courthouses).

No, playing at slower speeds, which forces everyone to linger in eras for longer, which means that you get a lot more turns of combat before a unit gets outclassed, definitely helps Atila. I mean, it magnifies the importance every next tier of units, but it also means that good UUs, especially the really early ones, are powered up even further. Plus, courthouses are pretty much a non-issue. The "Puppet" and "Raze" buttons mean there's no rush whatsoever in reaching them.

Not having played as or fought against Atila in early game, I can't say whether or not I agree with your conclusion, but I take strong enough issue with your methods that I had to bring it up.

 

[smallfish]

No, playing at slower speeds, which forces everyone to linger in eras for longer, which means that you get a lot more turns of combat before a unit gets outclassed, definitely helps Atila. I mean, it magnifies the importance every next tier of units, but it also means that good UUs, especially the really early ones, are powered up even further. Plus, courthouses are pretty much a non-issue. The "Puppet" and "Raze" buttons mean there's no rush whatsoever in reaching them.

Not having played as or fought against Atila in early game, I can't say whether or not I agree with your conclusion, but I take strong enough issue with your methods that I had to bring it up.

The Great Wall and 23-def cities and above can pretty much stop AI Attila cold.

Less so for a human player, but that's where dogpile wars come (3 Immortal AI vs you) and depending on skill, human may be overwhelmed.

I keep hearing about those rams, but every time I got one from a ruin, two things either happen 1) I am on an isolated island 2) the Ram gets near a city, and then dies the very next turn.

A lot of things on slower speed makes the Huns overpowered, yes, but so do a lot of other things - like farming 3 CBs all the way to Logistics Plus One Range types and having them be effective city siegers for 200 turns. That's the effect of having slower gameplay and less time for AI to react adequately.

 

[PhilBowles]

No, playing at slower speeds, which forces everyone to linger in eras for longer, which means that you get a lot more turns of combat before a unit gets outclassed, definitely helps Atila. I mean, it magnifies the importance every next tier of units, but it also means that good UUs, especially the really early ones, are powered up even further.

I think you're missing my point. It's a preparation issue, not a technology issue. The Huns don't dominate as long as their units aren't obsolete, only as long as they still have the element of surprise. Even in the ancient era, cities grow, city strength grows as a result, and the Huns hit a wall, even if they haven't run out of targets. The time it takes the Huns to take two or three cities gives other players plenty of time to build a defence, on all game speeds. If you aren't on a Pangaea map, you want to be able to tech to Optics ASAP if you're going to carry your rush past your first continent, if you haven't hit the city-strength wall yet. It's not a technology issue.

Combat moves at the same speed on all difficulty levels - slower speeds mean the opposition produce their units more slowly, but also that the Huns produce their units more slowly. The effect is symmetrical; game speed does nothing to benefit the Huns. An opponent who will have 4 spearmen by the time the Huns hit on fast speeds will have those same spearmen on slower speeds as well.

Plus, courthouses are pretty much a non-issue. The "Puppet" and "Raze" buttons mean there's no rush whatsoever in reaching them.

Also not the case. A Hun player isn't going to want to squander the early rush on cities he wants to raze - he needs to get the best cities quickly, and most importantly he needs to be in a position to develop these cities quickly, since other players are founding cities at much the same rate he's capturing them and have full control over them. Courthouses aren't about the happiness primarily, they're about being able to annex and develop your cities as soon as possible. The Huns, more than full warmonger civs, rely on being able to maximise their early gains to transition into a less aggressive later game.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

A bit annoyed how everyone thinks EVERY civ on this game is overpowering...

 

[Drawmeus]

I don't want them nerfed. Neither breaks the game. They ARE overpowered.

I don't want them nerfed for a simple reason: I don't want Firaxis thinking they have to spend a lot of energy balancing for multiplayer. They have a small team, and there WILL be tradeoffs. I understand that there are people who really, really enjoy multiplayer, but frankly I don't think Firaxis would be able to handle the increased strain without axing all creativity whatsoever out of civilization designs. That's a huge cost for the rest of us.

If a competitive multiplayer scene ever develops, they'll need to use a 'bans' system similar to games like League of Legends, and maybe perma ban some civs a la Magic: The Gathering. In casual multiplayer, just make it clear that the Huns and Austria are banned if you can't play around it.

Combat moves at the same speed on all difficulty levels - slower speeds mean the opposition produce their units more slowly, but also that the Huns produce their units more slowly. The effect is symmetrical; game speed does nothing to benefit the Huns. An opponent who will have 4 spearmen by the time the Huns hit on fast speeds will have those same spearmen on slower speeds as well.

Not true; slower game speeds have always favored warmongers, because since movement and combat aren't slowed down, you have more chances to use your units before they obsolete. This is as true for the Huns - where obsolescence is more a matter of enemies having sufficient defenses than it is a matter of actual tech - as it is for any other civ. They will get more use out of those units during the window where they're actually effective.

 

[Rebel Fighter]

I don't want them nerfed. Neither breaks the game. They ARE overpowered.

I don't want them nerfed for a simple reason: I don't want Firaxis thinking they have to spend a lot of energy balancing for multiplayer. They have a small team, and there WILL be tradeoffs. I understand that there are people who really, really enjoy multiplayer, but frankly I don't think Firaxis would be able to handle the increased strain without axing all creativity whatsoever out of civilization designs. That's a huge cost for the rest of us.

If a competitive multiplayer scene ever develops, they'll need to use a 'bans' system similar to games like League of Legends, and maybe perma ban some civs a la Magic: The Gathering. In casual multiplayer, just make it clear that the Huns and Austria are banned if you can't play around it.

I don't think this is the right solution.

It is not excusable to let one area of Civilization 5 to prosper while the other be neglected, no matter how important or unimportant. That's what a "team" is supposed to do: they work together to keep everything in check. Also, I'm sure making a few changes to lines of code would not tax their "creativity" as you put it.

 

[bcaiko]

The logical misstep in this case is to assume that, because lopsidedness and balance are not equivalent, lopsidedness is therefore unbalanced.

etc. etc. All of this has to be seen in their design context, rather than as isolated instances of "This unit doesn't require horses while its equivalent does! Broken!" or "This unit is stronger than a catapult! Broken!" The Huns are actually remarkably well-designed to do what they do early on, in my view (if with too little forethought as to how this will translate into a win condition later in the game).

Hmmm. I agree with almost all of PhilBowles posts. Not every Civ needs to be perfectly balanced for all ages. The diversity of Civs gives the game its strength. And I think PhilBowles' account of playing the Huns online lends itself to the credence that the Huns aren't overpowered overall. Just that it's not going to be fun starting right next to them (then again, if you do, you know what's coming anyway, right?).

 

[Drawmeus]

I don't think this is the right solution.

It is not excusable to let one area of Civilization 5 to prosper while the other be neglected, no matter how important or unimportant. That's what a "team" is supposed to do: they work together to keep everything in check. Also, I'm sure making a few changes to lines of code would not tax their "creativity" as you put it.

I think you're radically underestimating how much expense you're talking about for the developer. I've been through cycles of balance as a designer, and it takes intensive effort by fairly large teams to do well.

Games like Starcraft 2 and League of Legends are as balanced as they are (and neither is even remotely close to perfect) because they hire LARGE teams to work on game balance for extensive periods of time. It works because Starcraft does Blizzard numbers and Blizzard is flush with cash; League of Legends has a business model that keeps a constant influx of huge amounts of money because of its free to play/microtransactions model.

I think it's fair to say that the entire Civ V team is no more than a dozen people at this point, unless they've already ramped up for their next expansion or are planning on some major DLC; doing game balance with that team could be done if they did NOTHING else.

I agree that they need to support multiplayer as part of the game (or not have it, which Stardock proved is still viable for a game in this genre, but they chose to have it). It's just the balance minutiae of "These two civs are op; nerf please" that is a huge can of worms. They could fix these two, but then what? There'll still be a best civ or two that are op, they'll just be the next two in line (nerf Spain, when they get lucky it's game over on turn 1 and it ruins the game!). It's not like they have a whole bunch of perfectly balanced civs and two overpowered ones. Power level for multiplayer varies wildly from one civ to the next.

They need to not get into the mindset of "We're going to spend a lot of energy doing very good multiplayer balance" because they're working in a genre where to be profitable they need to be able to do things quickly and with small teams, because games like Civ are not very profitable. The alternatives are that they make all the Civs rough clones of each other (which is, incidentally, the Civ IV approach, very nearly, and they STILL have some serious balance problems), or they shut down the Civ team and don't make more Civ games since they can't make an acceptable product with a small enough team to make a profit.

So, like I said, I agree that some civs are wildly overpowered for multiplayer, but I feel that needs to be solved by community effort (Huns are banned).

 

[Lyoncet]

Not every Civ needs to be perfectly balanced for all ages. The diversity of Civs gives the game its strength.

Without actually going back over every post, I can say with a high degree of certainty that nobody in this thread thinks or has said or implied that every civ should be balanced in all ages. Hun early game > Siam early game is not a balance issue, and I doubt anybody here would present it as such. Hun early game > other early game to the point where Hun midgame > other mid games and Hun late game > other late games is a balance issue. Again, since I haven't played them, I can't say whether or not this is the case, but that's more the lines of where the actual problem arises. It just seems like you're mischaracterizing the opposition.

Although in multiplayer it can suck if you start near someone who can smack you early, but I doubt it's a foregone conclusion at any point in the game. Plus, that's where the politics of MP games come into play.

 

[Noxius]

Please, you think Spain and Huns are OP? Look at Babylon. They get huge scientific bonuses, and they can just out tech almost anyone (maybe Korea) and they also turtle with the really good Walls of Babylon UB. Only tactic vs Babylon is to try taking them out early before they get all their academys set up. Hopefully taking them out (if your close) before they uncover Masonry or Writing.

 

[Noxius]

just noticed this threads a year old lolol opps

 

[Jerman]

Please, you think Spain and Huns are OP?

Yes they are....
The Huns: Hit a weapon ruin with a warrior and you can knock out a civ by turn 10. I have done so before.

Spain: "Lets make all the gold rain b****ez"

Do you now get why they are OP.