But it is limited to a certain area. Continents are not synonymous with landmasses in Civ 6, you see. And maps are designed so that there is 1 continent for every 2 civs. So the American combat bonus is only good for defense and attacking one other civ and a smattering of city-states.
Well I know how continents works now. They are huge also. I think it is better to have +5 defencive bonus. It will be super strong anyway. Vs barbarians and major civs on this continent.
Even if you agressor too. But at least it gives chances for unlucky major CIV for defence.
Well I agree that they'll be good for clearing your general area and then holding on. But overpowered? Can't be so sure of that looking at what the over civs have.
But it is limited to a certain area. Continents are not synonymous with landmasses in Civ 6, you see. And maps are designed so that there is 1 continent for every 2 civs. So the American combat bonus is only good for defense and attacking one other civ and a smattering of city-states.
there is just 1 reason- because developers are americans . And we know that this nation is boring in the game, so they give them absurd combat bonus.
I agreed with this bonus but from industrial era but not from ancient era. With this bonus is america the most powerfull civilization from start the game .
Warrior - 25str, Swordman 40 str ....... With this bonus has america all units unique
Sure, and by that logic CiV vanilla developers were Greek and Siamese. But don't worry, maybe this one too will be patched by the DLC-devs from Babylon.
So you're impressed by +5 in any tile that arbitrarily shares a continent with America.
How about Japan's +5 on any coast or shallow sea? I bet there's as much terrain that falls into that category as falls into "on the same continent as Washington DC " on most maps.
How about Japan's +5 on any coast or shallow sea? I bet there's as much terrain that falls into that category as falls into "on the same continent as Washington DC " on most maps.
Well I hope for the best. Im just do not want to see America banned in mp because this flat bonus. Because I realy like legacy bonus and wanna play around it.
Sure, and by that logic CiV vanilla developers were Greek and Siamese. But don't worry, maybe this one too will be patched by the DLC-devs from Babylon.
I would take the Aztec LUA over the American LUA 100 times out of 100, it will be stronger and more flexible.
Even if you are just talking about early game military strength, at least seven other civs are well ahead of America: Aztec, Egypt, India, Rome, Greece, Scythia, Kongo.
I'd imagine a rush would be nerfed rather quickly and not come off as surprising. I'm guessing some compound of bonuses lead a civ to produce some ungodly amount of Culture or Faith way earlier than intended.
It's very unlikely to be a civ-UA alone. Most of those are created by the designers and evaluated as such.
As someone who used to beta test RTS games, generally speaking it's combos of various design elements that compound to create imbalance. In the case of civ6, it's likely a civ combined with some policies or governments or wonder abilities for example. Policies which we may not have even seen so far.
If the imbalance was the Sythian double unit creation alone, that is easily testable, measurable and predictable.
I'd imagine a rush would be nerfed rather quickly and not come off as surprising. I'm guessing some compound of bonuses lead a civ to produce some ungodly amount of Culture or Faith way earlier than intended.
Exactly, if he went to show off his game progress, it's likely to be something to do with one of the game's currencies (gold, science, culture, tourism, etc) and the means to how it was accrued with the civ he is playing rather than simple military might.
Ignoring the fact that it could be something related to an unrevealed civ, I guess it has something to do with the snowball potential. Probably a combination of bonuses that seemed like a huge opportunity cost at first, but in reality is a huge slingshot that makes the player get a huge lead way too early.
IMO the greatest offenders here are the Aztecs - the synergy between their uniques is SCARY. I can see how spamming the Eagles to prey on units of other civs and CS can result in a steady supply of Workers that speeds up your District development, all while the city production can be spent on anything else (hello CiV worker-stealing techniques). Amenities are barely an issue when they are covered by UB and LUA. While normally an investment into warfare will slow down the original non-domination victory path, Aztecs don't really have that problem. As long as the silly AI keeps creating units to defend itself, and the Aztec player keeps declining peace treaties, he can theoretically both expand AND go tall with his cities.
Let's think. It's something which exists in the current build. It's something not obvious by looking at the civ design, but discovered after intensive playtesting from people very familiar from the game. So... it's a level of balance way ahead of any our guesses. We could throw some dices and get results as good as any guess in this thread.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
