What do you people want in the next patch regarding balance ?

[Babri]

As for sieges, city defenses need some toning down. cities should not destroy its attackers, thats wat units are for. a simpler way is to cap a city damage, to 2 damage, garrisoned units will remove this cap. city bombardment removed.

City Defence abilities are very strong earlier in the game. Hopefully this issue will be addressed in a future patch.

 

[Sonereal]

Minutemen are not supposed to conquer, however ballista & legions are. A simple solution could be that Romans always start near a iron deposit so their UUs don't get wasted. Also Rome without UUs is just boring & weak. It is just like Mongols don't find horses nearby or English start in middle of the desert.

You could say that swordsmen and catapults are meant for conquering too which would mean EVERYONE should start by their resource.

City Defence abilities are very strong earlier in the game. Hopefully this issue will be addressed in a future patch.

+Walls, it's supposed to be difficult to take cities with walls and castles in the game. They were in the real world.

 

[Babri]

You could say that swordsmen and catapults are meant for conquering too which would mean EVERYONE should start by their resource.

But swords & catapults are not unique to any civ. Absence of iron simply cripples the power of Romans. You can still win the game but that will be up to your own skills. After all Iroquois have a Forest Start Bias. Why can't Romans have an iron start bias so they can make use of their power.

+Walls, it's supposed to be difficult to take cities with walls and castles in the game. They were in the real world.

But why should a small 3 pop city should be able to beat down an army of 2 swords & catapults. In a recent game, I had almost lost my forces, 1 sword was killed, the other 3 units had 2-4 HP left & I had to use insta heal to capture that puny city.
Also why is taking cities in later eras easier ? In real world it has become much more tougher to win a war in modern times due to guerilla tactics etc.

 

[Adrenaline15]

a rome that starts with iron has to be tweaked accordingly, since its guranteed powerful units. while i do agree rome without iron is boring and weak, but giving them iron will make them much too powerful whether in terms of fighting against AI and what not.

 

[Sonereal]

But swords & catapults are not unique to any civ. Absence of iron simply cripples the power of Romans. You can still win the game but that will be up to your own skills. After all Iroquois have a Forest Start Bias. Why can't Romans have an iron start bias so they can make use of their power.

I thought the Start Bias were focused on UA's, not UUs.

But why should a small 3 pop city should be able to beat down an army of 2 swords & catapults. In a recent game, I had almost lost my forces, 1 sword was killed, the other 3 units had 2-4 HP left & I had to use insta heal to capture that puny city.
Also why is taking cities in later eras easier ? In real world it has become much more tougher to win a war in modern times due to guerilla tactics etc.

Where was that city? In a butch of hills? Because those, even without walls, are hell to take down if they get too big.

Taking cities in modern times is pretty easy. The game treats the barbarians as rebels in this game. Cities are easier to take because of the fast-paced nature of things and the ability to bring more fire to bear. Cities aren't hard to take once the rules of war, such as not firing rockets or artillery shells indiscriminately, are dismissed. CivIV had the MAJOR problem of turning every city battle across the ages into a giant Stalingrad while CivV makes early cities+walls the bane of armies until cats.

Besides, if the guerillas were doing their job right, they wouldn't be making last stands in a city. The "occupied timer" thing or whatever is called is supposed to reflect that aspect but a real guerilla force would have long taken to the hills and forests.

 

[Babri]

I thought the Start Bias were focused on UA's, not UUs.

If that was so then why do Aztecs have Jungle bias ?

Where was that city? In a butch of hills? Because those, even without walls, are hell to take down if they get too big.

Taking cities in modern times is pretty easy. The game treats the barbarians as rebels in this game. Cities are easier to take because of the fast-paced nature of things and the ability to bring more fire to bear. Cities aren't hard to take once the rules of war, such as not firing rockets or artillery shells indiscriminately, are dismissed. CivIV had the MAJOR problem of turning every city battle across the ages into a giant Stalingrad while CivV makes early cities+walls the bane of armies until cats.

Besides, if the guerillas were doing their job right, they wouldn't be making last stands in a city. The "occupied timer" thing or whatever is called is supposed to reflect that aspect but a real guerilla force would have long taken to the hills and forests.

Yes it was on hills but newly created city should not be able to fend of medium sized professional army.
And I can take down a gurella force very easily in ciV using lots of aircrafts & artillery. This advance weaponry also makes city defences useless unless you have a sizeable army nearby. However in earlier eras a city with a garrison can do a lot of damage to invaders because siege units have a lot of limits (stand next to the city in some situations due to terrain) & no aircraft is available. This is unfair.
My solution would be to slow down the healing of cities when under siege. Historically it was possible that city started starving or lost hope to defend etc but in ciV they heal very quickly & laying siege to city is pointless .

 

[Babri]

a rome that starts with iron has to be tweaked accordingly, since its guranteed powerful units. while i do agree rome without iron is boring and weak, but giving them iron will make them much too powerful whether in terms of fighting against AI and what not.

Of course balancing it would be necessary. 2-4 iron near a Roman player would be fair so that they can make use of their UUs. And I also think that they should introduce buildings such as blacksmiths which enhance unit's strength & production to make iron more important while making iron quite common as it was in the Real World.

 

[Kevin J]

Also, they should really make the Iroquois better. Just making jungle also count in all of their unique stuff would be good. Crazy idea = All forests should count as roads for them?

Or handle it like the Inca - except with forests instead of hills. No movement penalties for forests wouldn't be unbalancing.

 

[Kevin J]

City Defence abilities are very strong earlier in the game. Hopefully this issue will be addressed in a future patch.

I hope it's *not* addressed. There's finally a choice between being a warmonger and taking the peaceful route. Although early conquest still has the edge, it's not the ridiculously easy guaranteed victory path it used to be. Boosted city defenses are the reason for it, and it's far more balanced than in the past.

On release, you could build 2-4 horsemen and take over the world (combination of OP horsemen and pushover cities). Now, the tactical AI is improved, city defenses are improved, and yes, horsemen are pretty balanced - the end result being that you need to think about conquest and plan for it - as it should be.

I can still take over a city state early with just a warrior and a scout (on marathon, doesn't work on standard), so really, I just don't buy the argument that defenses are OP. Once walls go up, throw in an archer, and your highly promoted warrior/scout + a single archer can still take a city without losses. Given the relatively high cost of units, city defense cannot rely solely (or even primarily) on units, or we will see the steamroll effect that was so prevalent in the early version of the game.

Even as is, you can still conquer your continent by the renaissance without a struggle if you pursue a militaristic path (on immortal or less, at least).

@ OP: While it may seem unfair to you to lose a swordsman in taking a size 3 city, this really doesn't strike me as a problem. When faced with a city with a ranged garrison, expect to suffer losses, or bring along a worker to lure out the ranged unit (it's cheesy, but it works every time).

 

[Babri]

I hope it's *not* addressed. There's finally a choice between being a warmonger and taking the peaceful route. Although early conquest still has the edge, it's not the ridiculously easy guaranteed victory path it used to be. Boosted city defenses are the reason for it, and it's far more balanced than in the past.

On release, you could build 2-4 horsemen and take over the world (combination of OP horsemen and pushover cities). Now, the tactical AI is improved, city defenses are improved, and yes, horsemen are pretty balanced - the end result being that you need to think about conquest and plan for it - as it should be.

I can still take over a city state early with just a warrior and a scout (on marathon, doesn't work on standard), so really, I just don't buy the argument that defenses are OP. Once walls go up, throw in an archer, and your highly promoted warrior/scout + a single archer can still take a city without losses. Given the relatively high cost of units, city defense cannot rely solely (or even primarily) on units, or we will see the steamroll effect that was so prevalent in the early version of the game.

Even as is, you can still conquer your continent by the renaissance without a struggle if you pursue a militaristic path (on immortal or less, at least).

@ OP: While it may seem unfair to you to lose a swordsman in taking a size 3 city, this really doesn't strike me as a problem. When faced with a city with a ranged garrison, expect to suffer losses, or bring along a worker to lure out the ranged unit (it's cheesy, but it works every time).

The point is that why is taking cities earlier more difficult than later on if you have a proper army ? Also I think that over-nerfing warmongering is not the right way. Boost peaceful way instead. That way both playing styles would be enjoyable. In the last patch they've dealt with some of the over-nerfing they did in previous patches like Liberty Tree. Similarly rushing is right now over-nerfed unless you exploit AI (like sending a worker as you mentioned) which they need to fix. I know I can cheat & I can make AI a fool, but I don't prefer that.

Regarding that scenario of capturing a city, I would say that loosing a unit is fine but the problem is that I had other 3 units down to 3-4 HP. I used insta heal promotion to finally capture that city. I would say that atleast make early siege weapons more stronger against cities & allow them to fire over hills/forests so that you can place them more securely.

 

[Kevin J]

I think taking cities early game needs to be more difficult than late-game, for balance. Small advantages early tend to turn into large advantages late game. You can't just balance it by buffing building, because in that case, warmongering still wins - you just conquer your buffed neighbours who benefit from the buffed building.

It used to be far too easy to go on a conquering spree, anywhere from Chieftain to Deity, without issue. Now, it takes some planning to pull off early on higher difficulty settings, and you may take losses if you aren't careful with your micro.

I find the early war game much more engaging - it's more challenging, yet very feasible if you focus on it. If anything, I'd rebalance the other way and make it *more* difficult early game, because as it stands now, going the warmonger route on anything below deity is still a guaranteed win.

Cheese moves like the worker trick are really not necessary, and I normally don't bother with them - I just pointed it out as an option.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

warmongering is very easy with longswordsmen and a general. but if you lack iron by bad luck then it is pure hell to go on the offensive since catapults also need iron.
and if you have iron you do not build catapults(waste of iron).
Sieges is all about numbers of high base strength units.
A walled city with oligarchy is pure hell to attack!

late game you simply use 1 atomic bomb to do the trick.

 

[Babri]

warmongering is very easy with longswordsmen and a general. but if you lack iron by bad luck then it is pure hell to go on the offensive since catapults also need iron.
and if you have iron you do not build catapults(waste of iron).
Sieges is all about numbers of high base strength units.
A walled city with oligarchy is pure hell to attack!

late game you simply use 1 atomic bomb to do the trick.

Longswords & Trebs are fine for taking cities in their era but taking cites with swords & catapults in Classical Era is way more difficult due to quick healing of cities.

 

[Babri]

I think taking cities early game needs to be more difficult than late-game, for balance. Small advantages early tend to turn into large advantages late game. You can't just balance it by buffing building, because in that case, warmongering still wins - you just conquer your buffed neighbours who benefit from the buffed building.

It used to be far too easy to go on a conquering spree, anywhere from Chieftain to Deity, without issue. Now, it takes some planning to pull off early on higher difficulty settings, and you may take losses if you aren't careful with your micro.

I find the early war game much more engaging - it's more challenging, yet very feasible if you focus on it. If anything, I'd rebalance the other way and make it *more* difficult early game, because as it stands now, going the warmonger route on anything below deity is still a guaranteed win.

Cheese moves like the worker trick are really not necessary, and I normally don't bother with them - I just pointed it out as an option.

Whatever path you take, having military is still necessary. However in ciV I can easily defeat a formidible force of swords & catapults by by rush-buying walls & garrison an archer which is not the right thing in my opinion. With the current defences I can easily ignore military units in earlier game because of poor AI AND OP defences (when aiming for non-domination).
Also keep in mind that earlier on your production & wealth is small so you can't create a Carpet of Doom which is quite possible later on. While nerfing cities a bit would make conquering for player easier but that can be solved by improving the AI. Also that would actually give AI a chance to actually capture your city if you neglect building a defensive force.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

In my oppinion research agreements in their current form are too powerfull. Actually all instant tech popping are.
I'd like it if research agreements and great scientists would be capped at some number of science points. Leave great library as is.

I'd also like it if there were more of an echonomical incentive to keep friendly relations. I'd like it if there were some international trade route income if you have a connection to a foreign capitol. You would no longer get 50 gold for selling open boarders, but get mutual open boarders for some gold pr. turn income from international trade route.
This should not apply to city states, trade with them should not pay for their relationships.

 

[aatami]

I agree too, nerf RA's. I'd rather have tech-trading back.
As they are, RA's are too good to be true.

Also, the Ottomans should get a really big buff.

The Iroquois should also... Make the UA & UB affect junges also, and make all forests roads for the Iroquois? Or would that be too mutch? As they are, though, they should be buffed a little bit. Too dependant on big patches of forests.

 

[Babri]

I agree too, nerf RA's. I'd rather have tech-trading back.
As they are, RA's are too good to be true.

It can be fixed easily in the following way :-

• RAs require Declaration of Friendship.
• Instead of providing a tech randomly, you get a small boost to your say like 10% or 15% per RA.

 

[Camikaze]

I'd much rather an RA nerf than tech trading. I think I prefer the system, even if you do think it is overpowered (although isn't that a reflection of reality?). The 'trust' aspect adds something to it that a straight trade doesn't.

 

[Babri]

I'd much rather an RA nerf than tech trading. I think I prefer the system, even if you do think it is overpowered (although isn't that a reflection of reality?). The 'trust' aspect adds something to it that a straight trade doesn't.

True. RA system is much better than Tech Trading. It just needs some tweaking & balancing & it would be fine.

 

[Save_Ferris]

It can be fixed easily in the following way :-

• RAs require Declaration of Friendship.
• Instead of providing a tech randomly, you get a small boost to your say like 10% or 15% per RA.

My idea?

• They require friendship, like you said.
• Keep the random tech.
• Change the starting money to 1000.
• After a trade agreement is completed, you can't start one with another civ for a while.
• Possibly a library requirement in the Capital?