I don't understand why people think Scotland's ability is useless. Every time I've played Scotland, I've found it very easy to manufacture a liberation war. You can usually set up a liberation war when exploring outside your immediate area/continent in the medieval/renaissance. The key is that when you meet some sad sack civilization that has no science or culture, you immediately trade open borders, send an envoy/embassy and then give them whatever gift is necessary to get the +10 modifier for a favorable trade deal. This almost always allows you to friend them the next turn. Denounce the person who is beating up on your newfound friend and then five turns later, you get your +100% production bonus. My recollection is that the liberation war casus belli never expires, which means that for the rest of the game you simply declare a liberation war, peace out after 10 turns, denounce five turns later and then declare another liberation war.
One other thing to note is that when you meet a civ for the first time, you should check their cities in the trade screen to see if they have any cities that shouldn't belong to them. This lets you know not to friend that civ because you'll want to immediately find the original owner of the city that they captured.
This is obviously moderately harder to manufacture than Australia's bonus and would never work in multiplayer, but for single player, as long as you do a small bit of work on diplomacy, it seems relatively reliable.
That a very interesting strategy! I will try to use it in my next run.
I assume it would be very hard to put in motion in a multiplayer game, isn't it?
Kongo is super-niche but very good within that niche. Same with Khmer (and really kinda the same niche.) Poland is, I feel, the Relic-focused civ most in need ot a rework. But Voidsingers are going to give all of these civs a shot of steroids, Kongo especially.
Georgia is much better than they used to be, and one of my favorites to play now. I could imagine them getting a little juice from something that adds Envoy points-per-turn for average level of walls, to inch them up a little closer to power parity, but they don't need much in my opinion.
Maya's start is very difficult, but that's also kind of the point. They're supposed to be hard, and give great bonuses for the effort invested in them. Also they've been around for like two months.
Spain probably needs help more than anyone else right now. The mission is strong, but continent-based bonuses are a bad idea and an inquisitor-bonus, while historically flavorful, isn't a worthwhile mechanic.
And yeah, I like Scotland but Scottish Enlightenment is basically the only thing they have going for them. The Highlander is one of the worst UUs (if not the very worst), the Golf Course marginal at best, and Bannockburn almost 100% useless.
Maya: I don't remember the name of who posted it, but I remember an idea for the Mayas that I found fantastic. Just allow them to move capital once or twice per game (maybe if the manage to a golden age or something). This way, if they strat in a terrible spot they can change their capital and therefore not be screw from the start.
Of course, a limited ability so they cannot abuse their bonuses.
Spain: I still think that they are fun to play and the bonuses are okay, but it is true that they are not very synergic. Another thing that I perceive as a "little nerf" comes with the last patch.
Spain cannot profit for work ethic, as they have to put they religious districts surrounded by "free tiles" in order to take advantages from their missions. So no good adjacency bonus from work ethic.
That not a problem, as they are not Civ focused in this bonus but the new belief are nerfin spain too.
For example, with the merge of warrior monks and burial ground, they have to choose between choral music/ jesuit education or warrior monks. Choral music allow them not get behind to much on culture, while jesuit education is of great great help when placing the science districts for the mission bonuses.
But now, if they want to still have one of these 2, they have to sacrifice burial grounds and loose the oportunity of "instabuild" missions for free (as it give you for free and instantly, the surrounding tiles for your missions).
Also, I tried warrior monks and as spain is quite not worth it... Spain do not gain enought faith until missions comes, and by this point warrior monks are not very useful.
Mapuche: I have not played with them, but against them on a multiplayer game. I think they need some changes too. They have some interesting bonuses, but they are too dependent on luck and the gameplay of others.
If one of the next updates is based on the discovery and colonization of America, they could add some changes to them. And if they add new mechanics, they could gain some of them!
I don't know if Spain needs to deviate too far away from what it is now. I also am under the assumption that Portugal might be exploration focused but probably not under Phillip.
I think instead Treasure Fleets needs to fit in more with the religious design they already have.
I would propose making the yields from intercontinental trade routes even stronger when they are between cities of your same religion, since that was the original intention of the Spanish Empire to spread Catholicism. It was afterwards that they were able to bring back their profits to the mainland.
What I was thinking is to have Portugal with is own leader, and Spain with philip II. But Philip could be chosen as leader of Portugal too (so Portugal would have 2 leaders, Their original own + Philip)
and if added a "persona" to philip, he could be about exploration (like giving him a bonus for wonders discovery) that would feet perfectly a Portuguese Civ but also an Spain more focused on exploration.
At the end you would have 2 Civs focused on exploration if they chose Philip persona, but with the ability to turn unto the old COnquest focused Spain and to a portugal with other leader bonus (focused on trade or getting luxury ressources, for example) if you prefer another playstyle for them.
Just like with France or new USA (new leaders but also new personas).
That was what I wanted to ask with the post. If other Civs could benefits with more "modern" aspects of the game, like personas or bonuses that could be rechecked to fit some new features of the game. Like they did with the new england after changing the strategic ressources and loyalty. A lot of civs have had some changes with every new expansion, but other feel more "old" in their mechanichs even if they are not weaker. I mean from a Gameplay point of view.
For example, Scythia or Mongolia are interesting Civs, but they do not take any advantages of the new features and expansions (as far as I know). So they feel a little lagging at this regard. Maybe they are still strong, but they could have little additions or changes taking in account these new features yo make them more interesting.
