Which Civ in Civ 5 deserves a redo more than any other?

[Dregor]

"Are you interested in revamping England?"

I'd say England or Polynesia. Both are a little too sea focused. While it's understandable with Poly it's still not balanced for the average maps. I feel the "well they're awesome if you play this specific map type" argument isn't a good one. The particular unique abilities should have benefits for all map types. Some people'd put Ottoman in this list too, but I believe they're ok as is. They have one of the strongest UU's in the game IMO, another that is ho-hum (tho I should really try using more seeing as you can upgrade Lancer's now), and their UA, while still being water oriented, is at least designed to provide some benefit even for a small fleet guarding a bit of coast on a pangea map.

 

[Roxlimn]

The Sipahi is actually pretty spiffy. You'll still lose it if you leave it anywhere where it can be attacked, but with 5 move, you shouldn't have to, and the +1 sight comes in handy. The no-move pillage can be really good if you need to pillage a key strategic.

 

[Dregor]

Like I said, I need to give Lancers in general a second look now

 

[Steelyglint]

Back on topic, the Ottomans really do suck. A UA for barbarian ships is worth next to nothing. Having a beefed-up lancer is pretty pointless too.

Have you played the Ottomans? Idk if ppl know or not, but you don't have to KILL the unit to take it, just sail right up to it. When defending coasts and exploring stuffs (particularly on Terra), their ability is excellent. You can have a very very large navy in a matter of turns if you just station your boat near a barb fleet.

It's still rubbish as a civ tho... :/

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, Ottoman/Germany I'd change the % conversion to 100%... and then adjust the gold payoff to compensate.

England/Ottoman is fine, what's lacking is strength of water.... perhaps if they boosted the naval portion of the Commerce category. (Naval Tradition giving all military ships Siege as well... and Merchant navy giving a gold bonus to water tiles)

 

[ShahJahanII]

Well, Ottoman/Germany I'd change the % conversion to 100%... and then adjust the gold payoff to compensate.

England/Ottoman is fine, what's lacking is strength of water.... perhaps if they boosted the naval portion of the Commerce category. (Naval Tradition giving all military ships Siege as well... and Merchant navy giving a gold bonus to water tiles)

100% doesn't sound right.
How about a guarenteed 50%?
Like if you take a barb camp, and you don't get a conversion, there is a 100% chance the next one will convert.

 

[Steelyglint]

100% doesn't sound right.
How about a guarenteed 50%?
Like if you take a barb camp, and you don't get a conversion, there is a 100% chance the next one will convert.

What difference would that make?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Americans again.

They're back to being Civ3 level suck. Semi-useless UA, and weak UU, though still much stronger than the F-15 from Civ3.

America in Civ4 was sort of helped by having 2 leaders, with Lincoln having a fairly decent trait, and a strong late game unique building. They don't get that here.

Though the 2 UU is much improved, the Minuteman is situational and the B-17 isn't that powerful vis-a-vis the vanilla bombers.

Give them their river start bias back and they're decent. UA is underrated, UU just so so but whatever. The ability to see beyond where units can move is a tremendous tactical advantage. Semi-useless must be some kind of joke.

Ottoman UA is situational but its UU power is pretty stout.

What bothers me most is that some civs were given abilities that just put them a class above others; Greece, France, Siam, water map England, etc. Most civs are fairly distributed but there are a handful that just overmatch the others.

 

[Roxlimn]

Krikkitone:

I was actually hoping to reinstate the current Merchant Navy bonus - as England's UA!

As part of a mid-game Social Policy tree, +3 hammers on the base tile for a mature city is really nothing special, especially for Coastal Cities. For a starting Civ, though, +3 hammers at the start for every city is godly! It would certainly encourage England players to site their beginning cities at the coast at almost all costs.

The +3 hammers could be thought of as super-monstrous, but it's comparable to what Russia might enjoy in the Classical Era once it has uncovered Horses and Iron. The main benefit is that it doesn't take tech to uncover and it's present right at the start with the Capital - all the better for England to claim Stonehenge!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Krikkitone:

I was actually hoping to reinstate the current Merchant Navy bonus - as England's UA!

As part of a mid-game Social Policy tree, +3 hammers on the base tile for a mature city is really nothing special, especially for Coastal Cities. For a starting Civ, though, +3 hammers at the start for every city is godly! It would certainly encourage England players to site their beginning cities at the coast at almost all costs.

The +3 hammers could be thought of as super-monstrous, but it's comparable to what Russia might enjoy in the Classical Era once it has uncovered Horses and Iron. The main benefit is that it doesn't take tech to uncover and it's present right at the start with the Capital - all the better for England to claim Stonehenge!

Early unit power and growth curve might be off with it though. Especially with multipliers and snowballing effects, you're looking at 100's to low 1000's of hammers across a game; much of them up-front. It's weak as a mid-game sp but it would be too far in the other direction as a starting ability. England would be instantly top-tier on everything but land-locked pangaea as the murderbow is already EXTREMELY good.

 

[Roxlimn]

TheMeInTeam:

It's good, but it's not that good. Its range is still limited by Forests and Hills, a weakness that is still only eliminated by the Indirect Fire promo, which is quite a ways out. For my part, given a large contingent of enemy units, I'd say that Cho Ko Nu are still better - their immediate double shot feature allows them to rachet up their XP that much faster, and their ability to move after shooting is invaluable in certain situations. Granted, Longbowmen are better out the gate against cities due to the Range promo.

I'm a little leery of granting the benefit as is to England as a UA, but its chief advantage is in the early game in the capital. Requiring the city to be Coastal is something of a limitation especially as regards settling multiple luxury resources. England is forced to decide on which course is better, and they will be generally mutually exclusive - settle the city inland for lux sales, or coastal for raw hammers. It'd just be sheer luck to happen on a coastal site replete with luxury resources.

A Russia with multiple Strategics in the Capital will not be that much worse off at the start, and she can settle inland without much loss, since you'll want to settle on the strategics anyway - dovetails nice with Siberian Riches. Her benefit increases as the Eras come down whereas England's proposed UA will dwindle.

Too, England's UA will subside as she takes more and more inland cities in conquest - you're certainly not gaining any UA benefit from those cities!

The main specific concern, really, is 3 extra starting hammers in the Cap, free of charge right at the start of the game. That could certainly be trouble.