Theorycrafting the Rebalance Patch

[The Civs 6]

As we all know, the Civ designers have told us they are going to rebalance "2/3rds" of the Civs in April.

It might be fun for this sub-forum to get into the weeds and systematically go through the Civs to spitball changes they might make.

So I'm going to do two things. First, I'm going to assign each Civ a score from 1-5 with 5 indicating OP and 1 indicating underpowered. If they are not a 3/5, I will sketch my idea out for changing them.

AMERICA - Bull Moose 5/5
Analysis: Getting +2 science or +2 culture, very likely from the start of the game, is a broken mechanic. America can also do that at scale, eliminating the need to develop any science or culture infrastructure early game. Since America can make tiles more appealing, they can sustain this advantage over the game. The appeal/faith pantheon nerf does a bit of work by making the tiles potentially less efficient.

Treatment: A culture victory civ should not get bonus science early in the game. Eliminate the science buff entirely. +2 culture a tile is too OP. But this would make this bonus slightly underpowered. So now, all charming + tiles get it. So TR's new ability would be: Charming or Breathtaking tiles gain +1 culture when adjacent to a Natural Wonder, Mountain, Wonder or Woods. +1 Appeal in all tiles in cities with a National Park. After researching Enlightenment, TR gets his old ability back.

AMERICA - Rough Rider 4/5
Analysis: Each of RR's abilities would alone be good enough to be a leader ability. But they don't have any obvious synergy. And they don't really synergize with the rest of America's abilities.

Treatment: +3 instead of +5 combat strength inside of America's home continent.

ARABIA - 5/5*
Analysis: IMO Arabia is an autowin Civ. If you can guarantee a religion without having to ruin your early game, a competent player should be able to win a religious victory. But that's Arabia's gimmick - it's not like you can tweak the numbers; it's a binary. And since Arabia gets no help getting early faith points, chances are they aren't going to get the best pantheon possible, which means they really get no help in making their religion succeed.

Treatment: No change. Arabia cannot be balanced. If you choose to play Arabia, you know what you are in for. In the hands of an AI, might as well be playing a generic civ.

AUSTRALIA - 5/5
Analysis: The exact opposite situation to Arabia, A civ that is incredibly overpowered because it isn't tuned correctly. I can't even make any clever argument here. They get +3 adjacency bonuses to multiple types of districts, on a relatively easy condition that synergizes with where you want those districts to go. But if John Curtin just had the bonus production from receiving a war, that would be enough to make him OP.

Treatment: John Curtin's leader ability only lasts for 5 turns before Diplomatic Service. Basically, what I don't want is John Curtin to be able to use his bonus production to either a) build an enormous army and wipe out the supposed aggressor or b) build high adjacency districts early game. The 5 turns forces Australia to choose where to put the extra hammers early game. And personally, I am open to just scrapping the ability altogether. I don't get the thematic/flavor reason for it at all.

AZTEC - 4/5
Analysis: I think the Aztecs are quite strong, but I don't think they are OP. They benefit greatly from early war but don't actually have any tools to be better at it than other civs.

Treatment: I would be open to a very small tune (maybe worker charges are only 15% of district build) but my recommendation is no change.

BABYLON - 5/5
Analysis: This civ really just translates into a domination civ, because as I understand it you have to hard research some of the space victory techs. But you know, having field cannons turn 50 is pretty good for securing any victory condition.

Treatment: I don't think we need to change Babylon. I think we need to change Eureka conditions. For example, Apprenticeship shouldn't be eureka'd on 3 mines. The payoff for a Babylonian player is enormous for getting those 3 mines. By contrast, a "normal" player who is interested in that tech will probably go like 6 mines first. So either increase the Eureka threshold, forcing the Babylon player to invest more early game, or make it dependent on things that require other intermediate techs/civics. Same for Machinery. Owning 3 archers is trivial and something you should do anyway.

BRAZIL - 3/5
Analysis: Someone can change my mind, but I see this more as a win harder civ (albeit very good in this respect) than a civ that sets you up to snowball.

Treatment: Jungles provide +1 adjacency to IZ's as well. Might as well make Brazil a little stronger.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I think people expecting for some powerful Civs to be toned down are going to be disappointed. The general philosophy with NFP is to push boundaries given that they game has been out for almost five years and I don't see that changing with the rebalances. And, I think fairly obviously, none of the NFP civs and leaders are going to be changed given that they have just been released and there has been plenty of time to make the minor changes Firaxis has deemed necessary, like the removal of the extra movement from the Comandante General.

Personally, I'd like to see the Khmer get Holy Site adjacency for rivers and aqueducts, standard or major. I wouldn't be surprised to see some civs and leaders get abilities that are already in the game, like Georgia getting to purchase walls with faith, Arabia to purchase Campus buildings with faith, and Poland purchasing Encampment buildings with faith. Stuff that is easy to do and already well understood from a balance and game play perspective.

 

[The Civs 6]

I think people expecting for some powerful Civs to be toned down are going to be disappointed. The general philosophy with NFP is to push boundaries given that they game has been out for almost five years and I don't see that changing with the rebalances. And, I think fairly obviously, none of the NFP civs and leaders are going to be changed given that they have just been released and there has been plenty of time to make the minor changes Firaxis has deemed necessary, like the removal of the extra movement from the Comandante General.

Personally, I'd like to see the Khmer get Holy Site adjacency for rivers and aqueducts, standard or major. I wouldn't be surprised to see some civs and leaders get abilities that are already in the game, like Georgia getting to purchase walls with faith, Arabia to purchase Campus buildings with faith, and Poland purchasing Encampment buildings with faith. Stuff that is easy to do and already well understood from a balance and game play perspective.

I kind of agree, but with this caveat: there are civs that are OP in fun ways (Maori and Arabia spring to mind) and then there are civs that are OP in boring ways (Australia). I could see them tuning the numbers for Australia, or the Nubians because that would be very simple to do. But I don't think they are going to mess with civs that are just fundamentally broken, and rightfully so.

 

[8housesofelixir]

And personally, I am open to just scrapping the ability altogether. I don't get the thematic/flavor reason for it at all.

There are some rumor that the design of John Curtain is a repurpose of a scrapped leader design for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"10 turns 100% production during war" is basically "Arsenal of Democracy", same with "like civs who liberating cities".

Treatment: I don't think we need to change Babylon. I think we need to change Eureka conditions. For example, Apprenticeship shouldn't be eureka'd on 3 mines. The payoff for a Babylonian player is enormous for getting those 3 mines. By contrast, a "normal" player who is interested in that tech will probably go like 6 mines first. So either increase the Eureka threshold, forcing the Babylon player to invest more early game, or make it dependent on things that require other intermediate techs/civics. Same for Machinery. Owning 3 archers is trivial and something you should do anyway.

I like this idea - say, why is Feudalism need 6 farms while Apprenticeship is just 3 mines.

Also, Crossbowmen is quite expensive to maintain in the early game, increase Machinery eureka to more Archers shall add gold pressure to Babylon as well.

 

[The Civs 6]

Here's another tranche. I'll be skipping over some civs (Canada, Byzantium) that I don't have any experience playing.

CHINA - QIN 2/5

Analysis: The fundamental problem is that early wonders suck in the meta. Workers are expensive anyway, and can be just as hammer draining as wonders themselves. So Qin gets an extra builder charge (which is pretty good) and maybe gets Hanging gardens that a normal civ wouldn't have gotten. There are two wonders that are relevant of that era (Machu Picchu and Oracle), and I don't even think you can use Qin's ability on Machu Picchu.

Treatment: builder charges can also be used on Medieval wonders (Kilwa). Forbidden City is now classified as a Medieval wonder [lol]. Basically, instead of Qin having to face a terrible dilemma of building worthless wonders versus being a generic civ, I want Qin to be able to revisit the wonder game in the Medieval, when there is less pressure and maybe a monumentality golden age.

CREE - 2/5

Analysis: One of my personally favorite civs, There are a lot of fun little tools that smoothen out the game, allowing you to build up the base yields of food and hammers a little more comfortably than other civs. But none of them are dramatically helpful, and none of them actually help you win the game at the end of the day.

Treatment: I'm kind of okay leaving Cree a fun generalist civ that is kind of weak. They have enough going for them in the early game with that free trader, extra early trader, and free tiles. I would consider reworking their UU to have lower +combat strength and lower hammer cost. Who is going to spend extra hammers building a scout, no matter what buffs it gets?

DUTCH - 3/5

Analysis: My main problem with them isn't that they are bad, it's that they are the most boring civ in the game. And you can't use their UI...

Treatment: what did the Dutch do? They converted sea to land. Polders are almost never in the game because they are so hard to place. So I'd do the following to Polders: a tile with a Polder is now a land tile. Enemy units will lose all their movement points when they step onto a Polder. For purposes of Polder placement, a Polder counts as land (so you can chain polders). However, a Polder must be bordered by at least one hex that was originally flat land.

ENGLAND - VICTORIA 3/5

Analysis: another Civ I don't think is particularly strong, but I really enjoy playing them. I have generally enjoyed the seafaring civilizations of 6. And the thing is, Victoria doesn't really have any buffs that help her "base" or the productive assets in the early mid game. But she gets a bunch of one time bonuses that can be reliably triggered, and are useful. Finding a new patch of land that is a distance from your capital, and getting a free unit, is a huge difference in practical terms in the game.

Treatment: +25% towards industrial buildings instead of +20%.

GAUL - 4/5

Analysis: It's almost like they designed a civ that exploits this game's meta without obviously being OP. Mines are really good as they are. But now, mines give culture, and they culture bomb. You were already going to use workers to build mines at some point. Now, you just are rewarded more for doing it. Another thing you always do early game is build warriors. Now, your warriors are significantly better. This UU is basically insurance against getting ambushed by a teching-up rival. On top of that, you get lumps of culture for making them. You can love or hate the Oppidum, but as we all know the AI just can't deal with hard points. Gaul basically gives you a lot of free stuff for playing the game like you would do normally. If there was anything about them that made them win harder to a victory condition they are an OP 5/5 civ.

Treatment: They need a nerf to make them not an overwhelming early rush civ. The leader ability which applies a +2 bonus for having units in adjacent hexes only applies in your own territory.

GERMANY - 4/5

Analysis: my favorite civ in the game. To me, it boils down to Hansas, which are my favorite district in the game. But the bonus district slot allows Germany to go very, very wide. A pop 4 city can get 3 districts going, which is basically all the districts a city will ever need. So you go wide and each city is a production powerhouse with the quick building Hansa. I have never declared war on a CS in civ 6, but that looks pretty good. And for good measure they get a free military policy slot.

Treatment: eliminate the CS combat bonus.

 

[Sostratus]

And personally, I am open to just scrapping the ability altogether. I don't get the thematic/flavor reason for it at all

I agree this ability alone is OP beyond belief. IMO just restricting the bonus to military units would be enough - the problem is that you can contrive a DoW from the AI, and then suddenly just slap up wonders, campuses, etc.
It is perhaps best recognized as giving the Aussies 10 turns of free production every time they get DoW'd or liberate. When framed that way, it's clearly bonkers.

The leader ability which applies a +2 bonus for having units in adjacent hexes only applies in your own territory.

Toning this down to +1 would be okay. Or restricting its application to just certain classes counting for the bonus.

Polders are almost never in the game because they are so hard to place. So I'd do the following to Polders: a tile with a Polder is now a land tile. Enemy units will lose all their movement points when they step onto a Polder. For purposes of Polder placement, a Polder counts as land (so you can chain polders). However, a Polder must be bordered by at least one hex that was originally flat land.

I have made mods testing polder changes. The primary issue that blocks fun needlessly is that mountains do not count as land for a polder. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
3 land or 2 land+ a polder would allow you do interesting chaining. As compensation the extreme self-adjacency could get toned down from +2 food/+1prod to just +1/+1, and the gold could go from +4 to +2. They are still an amazing improvement when you can get them.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I kind of agree, but with this caveat: there are civs that are OP in fun ways (Maori and Arabia spring to mind) and then there are civs that are OP in boring ways (Australia). I could see them tuning the numbers for Australia, or the Nubians because that would be very simple to do. But I don't think they are going to mess with civs that are just fundamentally broken, and rightfully so.

Again, Firaxis has had like five years to make any changes they've wanted and have debuffed civs when they think it is necessary, like Maori and Hungary, so I wouldn't get any hopes up.

Also, agree with the need for making Polders easier to place and that they should count towards adjacency requirements for additional Polders.

 

[The googles do nothing]

AMERICA - Rough Rider 4/5

Make them a late rush civ rather then a early rush civ. Get rid of the current combat bonus and give them +1 for each Strategic Resouce and England's +100% resource bonus for Oil and Aluminum.

AUSTRALIA - 5/5
Analysis: The exact opposite situation to Arabia, A civ that is incredibly overpowered because it isn't tuned correctly.

Just make the 100% for IZ buildings and i think they would be fine.

BABYLON - 5/5
Analysis: This civ really just translates into a domination civ,

Give them something more fun like Great Scientists for Eurekas and Great Works points for Inspirations, and give them they Suzerain bonus of Babylon CS.

There current bonus should be a mode where everyone get 100% boosts.

 

[Haig]

I would like some leaders to get an unique unit added to their leader ua, like Victoria and Matthias have for example.

Barbarossa could have a crusader unit for example.