Civs in RtR: Thread 2

[Cornflakes]

Native America UU: Canoe - workboat replacement that can carry 1 civilian (similar to Caravel's ability to carry settler/worker/scout). Allows earlier overseas settlement, and easier transport of workers to/from islands. Alternatively make Canoe a galley replacement available at Fishing instead of sailing. [Or if this is too weak, add Canoe as 2nd UU in addition to the Dog Soldier]

Spain UU: Armada - Galleon replacement with additional transport capacity (6?); alternatively a privateer replacement with transport capacity? For UB maybe break the Citadel XP bonus into 2-stages where they have a unique walls that gives siege +2XP and unique Castle that gives siege +3XP.

India BU: keep Mausoleum as-is but move far forward in tech tree, maybe to Calendar?

Korea UU: Add the ability to deal collateral in the same way as the Cho-Ku-Nu (i.e. can attack off boats and also damage Machine Guns); alternatively add a promo to start (Barrage or flanking?). UB: add +1 specialist to current UB; alternative add +25% gpp to current UB.

[Krill]

Canoe is interesting. Dog soldier needs buffing but canoe is vastly more interesting, albeit with limited value.

The Seowan would just be a better Research Institute.

No naval UU should be a one stop shop, all purpose unit without a cost involved. Netherland has it in needing to get Astro, but a privateer replacement wouldn't have that cost.

India just needs rebuilding from the ground up though. New UU, new UB. I had an idea around putting everything on Engineering: castle with 2 trade routes, obsolete at Corp, and a pike that was strength 8 but with other combat bonuses, like the landsnekt, make it such that India has an alternative strategy to use an Engineering rush rather than a Guilds push for Knights. Not sure it fits though.

[superdeath]

superdeath, going to be honest here, which generally means you might think I'm being a dick. I'm sorry if that's the case.

Ethiopia- UU Musket with drill 1,2,3? UB is a Colosseum replacement with double the hammers required to build, but gives all units produced in the city mobility 1?

At this point, I question your understanding of the combat system: Mobility does nothing for 1 move units, and has very limited value for 2 movers (basically enables a slight maneuverability edge when fighting with HA and knights in unclaimed, unimproved areas, or hilly claimed areas). Why would this be fun to use? And doubling cost makes it a malus, which is unjustified. Now if you meant Morale, that gives +1 moves to units built in the city...No. Just NO. Movement points are the most toxic thing imaginable: 2 mover swords with CR3? Backed up with 2 mover collateral?

Jesus wept that is terrifying.

The UU change is actually fine, but it doesn't work well with PRO.

I appreciate honesty, because honestly i dont know as much as i thought i knew about most of the combat/game mechanics. And yes, while broken now that i look at it, i did mean Morale.  

Ill take another crack at some of these, if the first time didnt give you a headache.

Are there any civs you are looking to change by chance? Otherwise ill just redo my list.

[Krill]

Right now it's not about thinking what changes could be made to the civs, it's about understanding what power level feels right, and what civs should do, in the context of interestingness.

For example, I'm wondering if all the start techs need to be reduced to a base cost of 45: compared to base BtS that would mean a total reduction of 30 base cost, from 300 to 270, which was discussed in PB27. For comparison, 2.0.8.3 and others have tech cost of 320 for the first 6 techs. That would mean start tech balance is then pretty much fine and we can just focus on UB and UU balance.

[superdeath]

Right now it's not about thinking what changes could be made to the civs, it's about understanding what power level feels right, and what civs should do, in the context of interestingness.

For example, I'm wondering if all the start techs need to be reduced to a base cost of 45: compared to base BtS that would mean a total reduction of 30 base cost, from 300 to 270, which was discussed in PB27. For comparison, 2.0.8.3 and others have tech cost of 320 for the first 6 techs. That would mean start tech balance is then pretty much fine and we can just focus on UB and UU balance.

Have you considered having all civs start with all the starting techs, or none of them?

[Krill]

Yes, but the issues are around timing. Remove the need to research start techs gives player about 25 turn head start on tech. Remove them all puts players another 12 turns behind.

Reducing the cost to 45 base cost, then adjusted for map size, does not have this issue.

[Krill]

Fuck it lets just rebuild all the civs.

[pindicator]

I don't think you need to rebuild all of them. Maybe start with 1 or 2 of the worst ones, get the power level where you like it and build from there.

Been following this thread with interest but haven't had anything worthwhile to contribute. If I get struck by inspiration I'll certainly chime in

[Krill]

"Rebuild" can mean a lot of things.

For India, I'd say it needs a new UB and UU and start techs. For Inca, I'd say they get a pass.

Somethings I've been mulling over but haven't had the motivation to post, examples of changes:

Egypt: UU: War Chariot. Chariot replacement, Strength 5, 2 move, Immune to first strikes, doesn't receive defensive bonuses, 10% withdraw chance, -25% against archers, +100% attack against axemen, requires horse, The Wheel, cost 30 hammers. Flank attack against up to 3 catapults. UB: unchanged.

Why this change? Egypt gets a choice to make: it is possible to use WC to guard against cats, but they do half the work horse archers do. Egypt has a unit that is half way between a chariot and horse archer, and there is a decision about when to get HBR that is different to every other civ. Combined with the UB, it opens up a different way to play Ancient and Classical era tech. It puts power onto a unit that has been weakened to make it possible to defend against a WC rush with only archers, if the defending player is screwed over by resources.

Is it fun? WC have always been fun, but there is a trap with HBR, and with the early game WC power nerfed, it makes sense to me to put it on later. It means WC can be viable all the way up to knights. Is it OP? I don't see how, mass WC invasions always get smacked down hard by HA because of the strength difference. This makes combined WC/HA better at being able to defend and increases the utility such that WC don't get discarded the moment Egypt can make HA.


Another idea:

Mongolia: UU: Unchanged. UB: Ger, Stable replacement. +4XP to mounted units, +1 culture. Requires Archer. Cost 60 hammers. Double production with horse. No trait production modifier.

Why this change, when Mongolia is actually picked a bit? Because Mongolia actually isn't that effective when you look at how it has worked when it has been picked. This change gives any player that picks Mongolia a method of popping borders for 30 hammers, but you need to get AH, find horse, settle for it and improve it. And tech Archery, both techs pushing Mongolia towards HBR, allowing Mongolia to prepare for an early HA rush if wanted. It pushes any player that picks Mongolia to play with mounted units more, because they get 4XP mounted units, but no XP on other units because why build the barracks? It makes Mongolia available to every leader.

One could question the production trait modifier removal: I think that the civs benefit from it, in certain circumstances. Here AGG is not punished for picking Mongolia, as any other AGG leader still needs to research HBR to build stables, this way they are available early, which is a bonus. And why would AGG build stables without access to horse? The only scenario where AGG is disadvantaged is if they tech all the way to HBR, and are still building stables as they hook horse, so they would pay more in that scenario, where they have prioritized differently. But I think that is how the civs need to be built: that each civ is unique and brings something the other civs don't, to make them work picking.

These two changes seem to be a good power level for ancient/classical era civs. They are interesting, because they do something new, but they aren't powerful inasmuch as the strategies they enable don't give significant bonuses at that stage of the game.

[Krill]

I also expect that changing all the tech costs for the start techs to 45 base cost also provides a blank slate for these civs. That change takes the start tech costs closer to vanilla BtS than the current RtR mod so I don't even think it can be called controversial.