[GS] Will Maori be the worst Civ whatsoever?

[Siptah]

This is useless. I chop trees only for production boost, and seldom build mines over it. You know, a game lasts short, if you're at turn 100, there's only ~50 turns for the rest of the game, thus turn-based production is seldom useful.

The addition of a new era will prolong a science victory. I don't know by how much for effective players, maybe 20 turns? We can't tell yet how exactly it will work and what it will require. This does not disprove your point at all, but weaken it a bit, since an early +1 production on a worked tile can than be worth more over time. And the Maori have it from turn 4 or 5, whenever they settle. Certainly, lumber mills are still too late to be useful though. And I don't think it makes it worth to improve deer, since camps are so weak for most of the game.

What's your impression about the Marae? Is it worth to invest in a TS and a Marae if you want to go for a science victory? Or is it a waste of time? I think the extra culture might be worth it in some specific cities, but my assessment is purely built gut feeling here.

 

[acluewithout]

@Lily_Lancer is posting again. @Victoria is posting again. There’s a ranking the Civs thread. Someone’s posting about Forts. Sarah is randomnly liking posts. And it’s been, what, three weeks since England was last nerfed? (WotW now gives +1 sheep not iron or coal, and you only get a free Melee unit when you launch the Mars Mission. ... On another continent. ... Twice.)

Hmm. Things are good.

I predict Maori will be the best worst Civ ever. Late start. No harvesting. Free builder, but who cares because he can’t Harvest. No great writers. All they need is an over priced scout or no chariots to upgrade to Knights. No, Maori will be slow, slow, slow. Deadly slow.

But they’ll be fun to muck around with.

Honestly, I think they’re less a Civ and more a “make your own scenario”.

 

[Gedemo]

I never harvested a since resource since I have civ 6. Chopping forest yes but resource no. Is it really usefull in the game?

 

[Siptah]

I never harvested a since resource since I have civ 6. Chopping forest yes but resource no. Is it really usefull in the game?

yes, massively.

 

[Disgustipated]

The addition of a new era will prolong a science victory. I don't know by how much for effective players, maybe 20 turns?

Also keep in mind techs in the future era will be randomized (a change I like). It could take longer some games depending on which techs you are able to research.

I think speed players will gravitate towards religious victory or domination which will be the fastest victory types in GS it appears.

I predict they won't make strong enough changes, and chopping/harvesting will still be the way to go. I don't think you will see consequences to your chopping/harvesting until you are well on your way to victory. Just don't put your spaceport on the coast.

Question for harvesters, is it still that powerful on slower speeds? Doesn't seem like it to me on epic speed. I'm not sure how well they balanced it.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

What's your impression about the Marae? Is it worth to invest in a TS and a Marae if you want to go for a science victory? Or is it a waste of time? I think the extra culture might be worth it in some specific cities, but my assessment is purely built gut feeling here.

Of course it can go for every victory type. It'll be still easy for it to win diety victories, despite victory type. But it will not be possible to win any type of victory as fast as any other civilization. (Maybe a faster religious victory than Kongo)

 

[Tech Osen]

It'll be still easy for it to win diety victories, despite victory type.

There is an odd contradiction that on one hand we are complaining that the game is too easy and on the other hand that some civs are not as strong as others, but apparently still good enough for an easy win on deity...

 

[Victoria]

+2 MP for embarked units can reduce many turns when you have to traverse the seas which may make up for the reduction in harvests.
More production early, ability to start building a builder earlier. Being able to build Quads from the start. It's not all bad.
But yes not being able to harvest resources is a big limitation for choppers.

Also this whole thing with global warming comes a little late for the optimals. They have already won the game in the industrial (or earlier) by chopping.

 

[marius_kaparius]

I think Chopping is more a factor for droughts than global warming.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The harvesting restriction doesn't bother me, I rarely do that anyway.
I'm a bit more concerned about the inability to get Great Writers and I'm not sure the late game tourism bonus from their UB will be able to compensate for that.
Of course that doesn't mean Maori will be bad, just maybe a bit worse for culture victories than other civs.
Otoh, the early production boost and free Builder will make it to get Ancient and Classical Wonders if you don't take too long to found your capital.

 

[local_hero]

+2 MP for embarked units can reduce many turns when you have to traverse the seas which may make up for the reduction in harvests.
More production early, ability to start building a builder earlier. Being able to build Quads from the start. It's not all bad.
But yes not being able to harvest resources is a big limitation for choppers.

Also this whole thing with global warming comes a little late for the optimals. They have already won the game in the industrial (or earlier) by chopping.

Yeah, they have probably won by then... or it is plausible that they have won by then. But perhaps we should be a bit cautious when we claim that the Maori will be weak for cultural victories (for instance) as we don't know how the reworked victory conditions will play out. I'm not anticipating dramatic changes, but you never know. Perhaps new conditions are introduced as the game drags out or something.

 

[UWHabs]

Based on Lily's rankings, which are rated on fastest victory times, then yes, the Maori may fall behind other civs. But based on everyone else's criteria, then no, they will not be the weakest civ.

As mentioned, lack of harvesting is a little unfortunate, but generally only is a handful of cases. The only way this will really drop them down is if the ability prevents you from placing wonders or districts over bonus resources. In that case, then yeah, they're going to have a lot of trouble as they'll miss out on the best campus spots due to some sheep roaming those fields.

 

[pgm123]

I never harvested a since resource since I have civ 6. Chopping forest yes but resource no. Is it really usefull in the game?

I don't usually harvest, but I needed a spot for an Encampment to upgrade some units and stone was in the way. Harvesting scales based on turns and since I hadn't built an Encampment yet, it was not to expensive. I harvested the stone and dropped an Encampment, which was built in one turn.

 

[Siptah]

I think Chopping is more a factor for droughts than global warming.

How the involuntary terra-forming and bonus/malus on terrain works out (and works at all) is actually the thing I'm most curious about in GS. As it seems, the devs avoid any screenshots and videos that would give hints though, so we have to wait until they decide to make a deep dive into this topic. So far, we only have a grasp at the yields from eruptions, we don't even really know about river flooding yields and destruction. No clue at all about flooding from rising sea level, storms or chopping.

 

[krokobone]

As the type of player not interested in winning the game as fast as possible, I hardly ever harvest anything. I enjoy sitting back and enjoying a game of Civ from the ancient era all the way to the future era, and I think the Maori will be a very interesting civilization for doing that.

 

[kryat]

FWIW, starting with the ability to sail through ocean tiles with +2 MP is massive. You could have colonies on all continents by T100. That early in the game, you may also be able to avoid areas with problematic loyalty, and begin your own encroachment. Not to mention you have +10 era waiting for you from first circumnavigation and first to meet everyone.

 

[Archon_Wing]

loll. Why so much salt people?

I don't want to pick on anyone in particular, but this discussion is clearly about balance. Half this thread is about people posting about how they don't care about that.

And that's cool and all, but if you don't care about balance or you don't gather, or you don't go for fast win, that's great. But why are you so insistent on telling the world that you don't care? And that's not really an argument or even a point.

So I'm tossing the question back at you:

If you don't care about this, then why does it matter to you either way? If they end up balancing it for gathering or not gathering-- it doesn't affect your gameplay in anyway, but it obviously affects someone else's.

If we do end up balancing the game, it'll benefit both parties, since the people that care will be satisfied, and the people that don't care won't be offended.

Otherwise, we run the risk of getting another Georgia, and suddenly that's not cool. And really, OP, I dunno if he really wins games super fast on deity or not, but idc, since they have pointed out potential issues with Rise and Fall and they turned out pretty accurate, but hey maybe people can make valid points even if you don't approve of them. I mean, even I am willing to admit I'm hardly the best player in this game (very far), and there are simply people that understand better. That doesn't mean they're always right, but hey, one can always learn....

I mean, idc if you gather or whatnot. I think the Magnus meta is a pure disease and needs to be nerfed to the ground. In fact, they should probably go back to civ 4 where it was just 20/30 production. But until otherwise, we should take that into account.

 

[AmazonQueen]

loll. Why so much salt people?

I don't want to pick on anyone in particular, but this discussion is clearly about balance. Half this thread is about people posting about how they don't care about that.

And that's cool and all, but if you don't care about balance or you don't gather, or you don't go for fast win, that's great. But why are you so insistent on telling the world that you don't care? And that's not really an argument or even a point.

So I'm tossing the question back at you:

If you don't care about this, then why does it matter to you either way? If they end up balancing it for gathering or not gathering-- it doesn't affect your gameplay in anyway, but it obviously affects someone else's.

If we do end up balancing the game, it'll benefit both parties, since the people that care will be satisfied, and the people that don't care won't be offended.

Otherwise, we run the risk of getting another Georgia, and suddenly that's not cool. And really, OP, I dunno if he really wins games super fast on deity or not, but idc, since they have pointed out potential issues with Rise and Fall and they turned out pretty accurate, but hey maybe people can make valid points even if you don't approve of them. I mean, even I am willing to admit I'm hardly the best player in this game (very far), and there are simply people that understand better. That doesn't mean they're always right, but hey, one can always learn....

In SP balance between the civs doesn't really matter and it might affect people who don't care about balance if Firaxis get scared off from trying out innovative approaches that mean civs play very differently from each other. Balance can be tinkered with later.

 

[Archon_Wing]

In SP balance between the civs doesn't really matter and it might affect people who don't care about balance if Firaxis get scared off from trying out innovative approaches that mean civs play very differently from each other. Balance can be tinkered with later.

You see, this is what everyone claims and then I read the next post on Reddit that "OMG KOREA HAS 943 SCIENCE AND THATS MORE THAN EVERYONE COMBINED." And yes, I think that ruins my game. No, I don't think my games should be randomly harder or easier if I use the same settings. And the ironic part is that people that speed win games do not get affected by this at all because they just overwhelm it. Casual players do not have that luxury and just hit alt-f4. People simply don't like losing, especially if it's not their doing. Even in co-op, this is what happens.

See, I think it's possible to come up with new things and make them strong and balanced from the start. There are many civs that are very well designed because they have good synergy with the rest of the game. This is a strategy game after all.

And from my point of view, they could simply sidestep the problem by simply nerfing resource gathering heavily so this is not a problem to begin with.

 

[UWHabs]

You see, this is what everyone claims and then I read the next post on Reddit that "OMG KOREA HAS 943 SCIENCE AND THATS MORE THAN EVERYONE COMBINED." And yes, I think that ruins my game. No, I don't think my games should be randomly harder or easier if I use the same settings. And the ironic part is that people that speed win games do not get affected by this at all because they just overwhelm it. Casual players do not have that luxury and just hit alt-f4. People simply don't like losing, especially if it's not their doing. Even in co-op, this is what happens.

See, I think it's possible to come up with new things and make them strong and balanced from the start. There are many civs that are very well designed because they have good synergy with the rest of the game. This is a strategy game after all.

Yeah, I don't mind some civs being a little better or a little worse, or the balance being off in extreme cases (OMG Norway is horrible in an inland sea map), but yes, general/overall balance does matter even in SP.

But I mean, someone has to be the worst civ, and I don't think the Maori are going to be that civ. I do think Korea needs to be toned down a little (even starting their campus at +3 instead of +4 might be enough). And I do think chopping needs to be toned down, although that's a general game balance issue, not a specific civ balance issue.