Worst Gods and Kings ability

[Gucumatz]

The Civ I personally think the worst UA is with is still Austria

I had a thread asking for what others thought of it, and while I could see some uses I just don't see many instances where it would actually make a big difference anywhere and I just see too many potential drawbacks from it.

To me Austria's is still the weakest.

 

[MaximusK]

Shouldn't Long Count Calendar go until 2012?

Well, currently, what a turn = in years changes throughout the game, no? as we get closer to present doesn't the turn/year equation change?

I guess we'll have to wait to see it work itself out later this week.

I play smaller maps so my game never lasts much past 1850.

Long count from wikipedia
1.0.0.0.0 November 13, 2720 BCE
2.0.0.0.0 February 16, 2325 BCE
3.0.0.0.0 May 21, 1931 BCE
4.0.0.0.0 August 23, 1537 BCE
5.0.0.0.0 November 26, 1143 BCE
6.0.0.0.0 February 28, 748 BCE
7.0.0.0.0 June 3, 354 BCE
8.0.0.0.0 September 5, 41 CE
9.0.0.0.0 December 9, 435
10.0.0.0.0 March 13, 830
11.0.0.0.0 June 15, 1224
12.0.0.0.0 September 18, 1618
13.0.0.0.0 December 21, 2012
14.0.0.0.0 March 26, 2407
15.0.0.0.0 June 28, 2801
16.0.0.0.0 October 1, 3195
17.0.0.0.0 January 3, 3590
18.0.0.0.0 April 7, 3984
19.0.0.0.0 July 11, 4378
1.0.0.0.0.0 October 13, 4772

 

[The_Tyrant]

Sweden. It's nice to have a peaceful AI but I don't see the benefit of giving away my great people.

 

[Gucumatz]

Well, currently, what a turn = in years changes throughout the game, no? as we get closer to present doesn't the turn/year equation change?

I guess we'll have to wait to see it work itself out later this week.

I play smaller maps so my game never lasts much past 1850.

Long count from wikipedia
1.0.0.0.0 November 13, 2720 BCE
2.0.0.0.0 February 16, 2325 BCE
3.0.0.0.0 May 21, 1931 BCE
4.0.0.0.0 August 23, 1537 BCE
5.0.0.0.0 November 26, 1143 BCE
6.0.0.0.0 February 28, 748 BCE
7.0.0.0.0 June 3, 354 BCE
8.0.0.0.0 September 5, 41 CE
9.0.0.0.0 December 9, 435
10.0.0.0.0 March 13, 830
11.0.0.0.0 June 15, 1224
12.0.0.0.0 September 18, 1618
13.0.0.0.0 December 21, 2012
14.0.0.0.0 March 26, 2407
15.0.0.0.0 June 28, 2801
16.0.0.0.0 October 1, 3195
17.0.0.0.0 January 3, 3590
18.0.0.0.0 April 7, 3984
19.0.0.0.0 July 11, 4378
1.0.0.0.0.0 October 13, 4772

After the 13th Baktun, they should start repeating again though. So the next day after December 21, shouldn't it start over again the very next day? The Maya calender was cyclical afterall. Because I guess it would make sense for it to go to 20 [Maya numerals broke themselves up in groups of 20, unlike the western method of decimals/groups of ten] But if so this is interesting. Means I ought to look into this because I thought the Baktuns could only go to 13 and not beyond. Because we are currently in the 4th cycle of the Long Count. So I guess I should look before I speak more but would be interesting then if the next Long Count was supposed to end in the 7th Baktun

 

[Gucumatz]

After the 13th Baktun, they should start repeating again though. So the next day after December 21, shouldn't it start over again the very next day? The Maya calender was cyclical afterall. Because I guess it would make sense for it to go to 20 [Maya numerals broke themselves up in groups of 20, unlike the western method of decimals/groups of ten] But if so this is interesting. Means I ought to look into this because I thought the Baktuns could only go to 13 and not beyond. Because we are currently in the 4th cycle of the Long Count. So I guess I should look before I speak more but would be interesting then if the next Long Count was supposed to end in the 7th Baktun

Ok so I just looked it up and wow its fascinating - I need to read more on this for a while...

But there is always more to learn it seems. You are right, Baktuns go all the way to the 20th and then reset at 1. And that makes up one Piktun. And apparently there are higher numbers/orders beyond Piktuns as well. And this one link I am reading at the moment says there are arguments actually by archaeologists, that the 13th Baktun of a series is actually not the true endpoint of the Long Count, but rather that of each Piktun and that the Palenque inscriptions and codices were using it as symbolic but not for the countdown of the era.

========

So to be blunt, I need to read more, but sounds like there is controversy between the two, woaw.

 

[Calouste]

Well, currently, what a turn = in years changes throughout the game, no? as we get closer to present doesn't the turn/year equation change?

I guess we'll have to wait to see it work itself out later this week.

I play smaller maps so my game never lasts much past 1850.

Long count from wikipedia
1.0.0.0.0 November 13, 2720 BCE
2.0.0.0.0 February 16, 2325 BCE
3.0.0.0.0 May 21, 1931 BCE
4.0.0.0.0 August 23, 1537 BCE
5.0.0.0.0 November 26, 1143 BCE
6.0.0.0.0 February 28, 748 BCE
7.0.0.0.0 June 3, 354 BCE
8.0.0.0.0 September 5, 41 CE
9.0.0.0.0 December 9, 435
10.0.0.0.0 March 13, 830
11.0.0.0.0 June 15, 1224
12.0.0.0.0 September 18, 1618
13.0.0.0.0 December 21, 2012
14.0.0.0.0 March 26, 2407
15.0.0.0.0 June 28, 2801
16.0.0.0.0 October 1, 3195
17.0.0.0.0 January 3, 3590
18.0.0.0.0 April 7, 3984
19.0.0.0.0 July 11, 4378
1.0.0.0.0.0 October 13, 4772

So you get 6 maybe 7 GPs in one game (not counting the one you get in 2012, not a lot of games make it that far). Can you get to Theology by 750 BCE?

 

[Barghaest]

Yeah, I still don't understand the fascination with 12-21-12... from what I could gather in my (albeit limited compared to dedicated historians) research of the subject, the Mayans believe creation was destroyed and remade every Piktun... which I would assume to be projected to happen in 4772 (not 2012) when the count rolls over (which would mean the last time it happened was 2720 BCE which implied the world itself is not destroyed since we have evidence of civilations pre-dating this date).

The only significance I see of the 13th Baktun is an anniversary date of something that happened in the previous Piktun... and if that anniversary was the destruction of creation... why didn't a new Piktun start immediately after it instead of waiting 7 more Baktuns?

As for getting back on topic with worst ability, I'd have to say Sweden. I find GPs too precious to gift to city-states (even for 90 inf), making that part of the ability meaningless to me right there. As for DoFs adding 10% GP rate, that doesn't make a DoF appealing enough to me since they're currently useless in multiplayer and as of right now (unless G&K does some significant changes to them), DoFs are of limited use vs AI... they might push back hostilities temporary but are usually just a gateway for AI to ask for free stuff from your empire while refusing your requests for aid even if they're a far more dominate empire or could request an even trade - I get so annoyed when Gandhi asks me for free resources when I only have one surplus and he has 5+ because if I refuse I get a black reputation for eternity... at the current diplo state I wish I could simply refuse AI ambassadors and just get the icon when they request crap because the leader screens annoy me most of the time.

 

[Wolle68]

As for getting back on topic with worst ability, I'd have to say Sweden. I find GPs too precious to gift to city-states (even for 90 inf), making that part of the ability meaningless to me right there. As for DoFs adding 10% GP rate, that doesn't make a DoF appealing enough to me since they're currently useless in multiplayer and as of right now (unless G&K does some significant changes to them), DoFs are of limited use vs AI... they might push back hostilities temporary but are usually just a gateway for AI to ask for free stuff from your empire while refusing your requests for aid even if they're a far more dominate empire or could request an even trade - I get so annoyed when Gandhi asks me for free resources when I only have one surplus and he has 5+ because if I refuse I get a black reputation for eternity... at the current diplo state I wish I could simply refuse AI ambassadors and just get the icon when they request crap because the leader screens annoy me most of the time.

Don't forget that DoFs are now a requirement for research agreements. That makes them much more worthwhile. I'll try to have a couple of friends in each game now, just for the research agreements. If that means +20% GP rate in all cities, I think that's powerful. 90 influence is a bad trade for a GS, but it could be okay for a spare GG. Especially when you can no longer buy influence.

Diplomatic Marriage (Austria) on the other hand seems pointless. I rarely want to annex or puppet city states anyway.

 

[Barghaest]

Don't forget that DoFs are now a requirement for research agreements. That makes them much more worthwhile. I'll try to have a couple of friends in each game now, just for the research agreements. If that means +20% GP rate in all cities, I think that's powerful. 90 influence is a bad trade for a GS, but it could be okay for a spare GG. Especially when you can no longer buy influence.

Diplomatic Marriage (Austria) on the other hand seems pointless. I rarely want to annex or puppet city states anyway.

True, but I hardly use RAs... I'm almost always ahead of the AI in research, RAs are the one tool THEY possess to try to keep pace... but they're meaningless anyway since they're usually so far negative in GPT they can't even sign them with each other. Even if I gift my enemies with thousands of gold, they waste it buying units they don't need (usually to feed mine xp) instead of signing RAs with each other.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I get the impression that a few people are looking at the new Civs from the point of view of their own favourite strategies and inevitably finding that they won't work.

Ethiopia's UA seems to demand staying small, which points towards a Culture victory. It sounds interesting though.

I worry about the Celts being so dependent on forests. With the right conditions they'll be very powerful (see the Iroquois and the Inca) but they won't be successful on every map.

The Dutch UA does strike me as being a little weak, though on the other hand it could potentially lead to being able to maintain a larger empire more easily, which is never a bad thing. Any kind of happiness bonus in this game shouldn't be dismissed. Sure, a little unhappiness isn't the end of the world but more happiness does mean more growth, more great people, etc.

Sweden will become powerful quickly by playing a peaceful game. Lots of DoFs = lots of GPs = lots of CS influence = Diplomatic victory in the bag.

 

[smallfish]

I dunno about being only focused on cultural vics - I mean, if Ethiopia has ten cities, 6 gained from conquest, and runaway Korea has 30 (and is busy gobbling up runaway Incans so more than that), I can foresee some really fun times with Logistics Stealth that have additional 25% attack bonus.

 

[blackcatatonic]

True, although based on what I've seen of the AI's behaviour since the new patch, it doesn't seem to overexpand as much as it used to. I could have just been (un)lucky, though.

 

[smallfish]

Nah, they still do that, but I haven't checked out for emperor/king yet.

Also, I hope Sweden won't become the new Danes everytime they start next to Napoleon, Montezuma or Augustus... or that prick Alexander. Gustav sounds like a really awesome buddy to have, and it'd be a shame to have him go before Turn 200.

 

[blackcatatonic]

It definitely seems to be more pronounced on King, but on Emperor I've also seen normally expansionistic Civs stick to 2 or 3 cities. Map type will probably have a substantial influence on how Ethiopia will play, too.

I think one of the things I'm most excited about is the incentivisation of DoFs. So yeah, if Gustavus makes it until I meet him, he'll be great.

 

[Barghaest]

I get the impression that a few people are looking at the new Civs from the point of view of their own favourite strategies and inevitably finding that they won't work.

Wouldn't that be the case of anything based upon opinion? I mean I have no issues adjusting my strategy (or even my playstyle somewhat) depending on which Civ I play... when I'm the Aztecs I tend to be aggressive so I'm always earning culture, when I'm France I will expand rapidly early in the game, when I'm England I try to control the coast, when I'm India I expand slowly - if much at all - and turtle. I adjust victory conditions based upon current situation (but Conquest always seems to be the way it ends up with the current diplomacy status).

I've already beaten the game on all speeds, maps and difficulties... now I want to enjoy it the way I prefer to play - slow-paced and defensively as I'm more interested in building an empire than crushing everyone else but I want the AI to keep pace and challenge me because, in the end, someone has to win - so I value UAs based upon that.

No UA is truly worthless... but not all UAs have equal value to all players of the game - there are those who play with no city-states or barbarians, those who only do multiplayer, those who want quick games, those who want marathon, etc...

 

[blackcatatonic]

I think what I was trying to articulate was the fact that the expansion will be bringing a lot of changes, so any attempt to play the game the way one is used to doing is going to be frustrated to some extent anyway. It's a bit pointless speculating on this stuff from the POV of how people are accustomed to playing when I anticipate that the way in which everyone plays is going to be adjusted at least a little bit...

 

[smallfish]

I try not to adjust my playstyle to suit the civ's UA (then again, lately, its been Late-Game Domination).

Sometimes I just have fun-fun.

One game as the Aztecs, I used them for early-mid game conquering before I stopped completely at the other continent, where me and runaway China shared borders. My fluff rationale was that the ideology of democracy took hold (took Freedom instead of Autocracy or Order), and then we were trying to prevent an aggressive warmonger (at that point Germany was running over China and everyone else) from being aggressive.

Then went for a Science Victory instead even though we could have continued pushing.

 

[blackcatatonic]

See, ever since I moved up to Emperor I've gone off Domination completely. If I do anything aggressive, the AI attacks me. If I ever try to play peacefully, the AI attacks me anyway. Getting sucked into pointless war after pointless war is just so dull. I'll fight them to the point that they're no longer a threat, and then I'll settle down and go for my nice Science or Culture victory.

I'm hoping that I can rediscover the joys of early Domination with a little help from the Huns...

 

[smallfish]

Indeed, its getting all kinds of old even though I adore those Tom Clancy-esque scenarios of Modern eras. I think at this stage I'm just playing more for the chuckles and to see how much I could get away with on those high levels.

Which reminds me: I haven't really done a cultural victory at all. And its been a while since I went for Diplomatic.

Me thinks that I will have to try them sometime this (or next) week. Should be fun with 'em new mechanics!

 

[blackcatatonic]

I think my last Diplomatic was my first ever game at Prince, ages ago now. I was playing as Elizabeth. It felt like such a cop-out - someone built the UN so I panic-bought all the CSs I could. What an awful game

Culture is fun but always seems to take me a lot longer than Science. I would say my wins are about 70% Science, 25% Culture and the odd one or two Dom or Diplo.