View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 16 Feb 2020, o 14:58

Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 Balance feedback on SVN 3.4 
Author Message

Joined: 4 Mar 2013, o 22:19
Posts: 30
Post Balance feedback on SVN 3.4
I only play the premade huge europe map on emperor/immortal because my earth maps crash. Here are some of my observations:

1) Great Artists are rather worthless unless for a cultural victory. And even then, economy is too important. This means that all the great artist wonders actually hurt you (Parthenon, theater of dyionysis, etc)
2) Religious civic Militancy is a poor choice in almost every situation. its upkeep is very high, and it further slows down your economy with a science malus. Same goes for theocracy unless you plan on doing a great prophet economy somehow.
The military boost Militancy offers can be offset by civil religion's bonus to buildings (those with civic religion can build buildings faster and thus start making military)
3) The great library wonder is definitely the best wonder right now: it allows you to focus a great scientist economy which is very powerful when you dont have a big empire yet. This is a key point on staying ahead in tech despite whatever starting situation.
4) Arent skirmishers too powerful? Especially in forests (get forest warfare promotions and profit).

Good traits: -Politician (relations boost is awesome due to nations not attacking you and opening borders which leads to better tech boost)
-Industial (production boost is good entire game)
-Financial (commerce boost is good entire game)
-seafaring (trade routes)
-Expansive (all bonuses are decent and the +3xp to recon allows to make a great recon force for some nations)
-legislative (+1 production and -50% civic cost is great especially for big empires)

Bad traits: -Progressive (the 5% science boost is offset by all of the good traits. You'd get more science as a politician due to open borders, etc).
-Conqueror ( the only good thing here is maybe the rural logistics. Although its a good trait for the AI) The 3xp to cavalry is bad for human player since cavalry isnt worth it until mid game and
even then its effectiveness is limited due to high build cost)
- Spiritual. The no anarchy thing is kind of useless since, lets say out of 700 turns, you'd only need to be in anarchy just a few times.
- Humanist. I personally dislike wasting great people on golden ages. Only decent thing here is +1 commerce on city plot

Also I think the increasing build cost for cavalry/archers/infantry/etc should decrease from 15% to maybe 10-12%. On the huge europe map at least its kind of pointless to build lets say 10 heavy cavalry even if you have 10+ cities because these cavalry become so expensive: at some point it becomes more effective to turn your cities to build science/commerce rather than build military units. I think this point comes way too soon than it should. (would you rather have a good city spend 10 turns building one cavalry unit or produce 250 commerce?)

Perhaps a system of decreased unit cost per city could be implemented?

-Egypt's and babylon's fertile lands give a much too big health malus to the human player. Despite being some of the most populous regions in history during the ancient period, this is very hard to achieve for a human player (egypt's first worker will take 36 turns to complete on immortal, compared to every other nations which is 24 turns or less. And even after the first worker, egyptians/babylon cities will generally have a hard time growing). Egypts unique improvement doesnt solve the issue for the human player

2 May 2018, o 15:22
RI Team
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007, o 09:23
Posts: 2927
Post Re: Balance feedback on SVN 3.4
I believe you are missing the point in certain cases.

1) But that's exactly the point of artists and culture! What other use should artists have but producing culture? If anything, they are marginally less useless for other things than in vanilla, but come on, producing culture is the actual point of them.
2) From everything else, I see you're definitely in the "builder" camp (as am I myself), but when you're gearing for a major war, Militancy is a good civic. Likewise, it is useful if you need to get rid of non-state religions. So it has its uses, though with certain playstyles those might occur very rarely (also, any civic with marginal utility becomes MUCH more useful under Spiritual, see below).
3) Yeah, it is. Are you asking for a nerf of it? Or a nerf of great scientist economy?
4) I keep hearing that, but I really haven't seen it in practice. They are basically ONLY useful against melee units, and only when attacking those. One archer or any cavalry unit except for a chariot gives your stack almost total protection from skirmishers. Yes, they are a good counter to melee units, but nobody is ever forced to build a melee-only stack, as at least archers are always available.

Regarding traits; I feel you are missing the main draws of certain traits. Not going over the ones you outlined as good, but rather the ones you're pointing out as bad.
- Progressive. You're forgetting the upgrade cost reduction. It saves you a TON of money in the long run. It may actually be the best gold-oriented civic.
- Conqueror. Indeed, the main draw here is rural logistics, which is usually more important than urban, as when attacking a city, you are always at a disadvantage. But with this one trait I actually agree, I also always thought it lacked a certain something...
- Spiritual. It is probably the most interesting and useful trait out there. The point you've made on anarchy may stand on its own (though a trait that gives you 10 more productive turns per game compared to your rivals is nothing to laugh at), but its main advantage is that you can think of civics in a totally different manner - to fully get advantage of Spiritual, just start changing civics far more often, to extract that marginal utility. Going to build some units? Switch to free XP and military production civics for several turns. Need to spread your religion but don't have monasteries handy (or late game where you have colonized a different continent and can't build monasteries at all there)? Switch to Monasticism for a few turns. Basically, it's a playstyle-changing trait, and can be very powerful if exploited properly.
- Humanist. The fact is, you're still going to have at least a couple golden ages during your game. Also, the +1 commerce isn't irrelevant, especially early in game, where every little bit matters. Effectively, even for the starting city with +8 commerce palace, it is more than a 10% bonus if you have no commerce-producing starting plots to work.

On unit costs: the optimal numbers are arbitrary, and come from a personal feeling. I feel that even a 10+ city civ shouldn't field 10 or more heavy cavalry. Those aren't garrison units, those are a core of a heavy attack force. How many of them does one need for one attack army? For two? The units that should be built en masse have smaller cost increases. The units that should never form the backbone of your armies have larger ones.

Egypt is probably the easiest start otherwise, tailor-made for them to spam their unique improvement. I agree that certain starting positions are more or less valuable depending on the difficulty setting, and generally health starts becoming more of an issue. But I'm not sure if it is something that needs to be "fixed". Egypt is a bad start on World Map for higher difficulty settings. So it is. Conversely, it is one of the best on lower ones. Again, so it is.

One could look at it this way: choosing a harder difficulty setting almost guarantees you that you're not among the top performing civs for the first couple of eras (due to how easy it is to stay ahead once you are ahead in Civ in general, this is probably the only viable approach to increasing difficulty). If you play well, you catch up by medieval. Egypt and Babylon historically were the "top performing civs" early on in history. So indeed one cannot expect to replicate their historical dynamics when playing on higher difficulties, more or less by nature of what a higher difficulty setting means.

3 May 2018, o 01:45

Joined: 4 Mar 2013, o 22:19
Posts: 30
Post Re: Balance feedback on SVN 3.4
skirmishers do not get any malus against any unit when attacking, meaning their combat odds are always about 40% or better up until the end of the medieval era(i've never played past the medieval era to be honest). Additionally, the countries whose skirmishers start with 75% attack bonus on forest can easily get 125% bonus with just two upgrades, giving them 90%+ combat odds against almost any stacks as long as its in a forest. I am not saying they should be nerfed, however, as skirmishers are the best way to fight AI on hard difficulties

4 May 2018, o 00:39
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.