Nation balance

OgreMagi · February 2, 2002, 20:17

Just a thought that occured to me while reading, but mabye the nations as they are have some weak UU's on PURPOSE. For example: the French. The french have one of the lousiest UU's in the game, but they also have both Commercial AND Industrial, 2 of the GREATEST especially in combination. Contrast this with the Iroquois or the Aztecs, sure the abilities of Expansionist, Religious, and Militaristic are all decent abilities, but each is of only limited use, and does not provide far-reaching widespread civ advantages. Commercial and industrial can, in there own ways, provide all of these advantages, if slightly less efficient.

Another example is England, which has expansionist and commercial, and which uses the UU of Man-of-War (IMO another very bad unit). Now taken together, expansionist and commercial might not seem so great, but if you consider the advantages of each, it makes sense. Expansionist is one of the best early game advantages, whilst commercial's true power kicks in during the late game. This makes this Civ one of the most balanced in the game, allowing for equal strength during both early game and late game (ignoring effectiveness of UUs).

I think that it's possible that these more well-balanced Civs were winning far too much during early game testing, and so they were given a significant disadvantage in the UU department. It is my personal belief that they may have created a greater disparity between these Civs and those with exceptional UUs than might have been otherwise without such a change.

Just a thought, probably wrong, but it's good sometimes to stir the thought processes

Questions? Comments? Inane posts? I'm all ears.

Dienstag · February 3, 2002, 02:01

Good thoughts, but it seems a little too convenient that Firaxis found some cosmic balance between civ traits and unique units, judging from how arbitrary some of the other features in the game seem. If they playtested to the extent that you speculate, I cannot imagine that UU's would be the first thing they'd change.

But if nothing else, it sure is nice to have the variety, even if I'm never ever building Musketteer.

JohnE · February 4, 2002, 17:01

If I recall correctly, in some thread or chat Firaxis admitted not playtesting in the modern era, and only playtesting a little in the industrial era. That explains how some stuff came out the way it did, but I believe they did make an attempt to balance out the civilizations. Even rudimentary playtesting would reveal the power of the French attributes, for example, as players figured that out quickly. It is also worth noting that good cases are made by players on these boards for every civilization offered with two notable exceptions, the expansionist civilizations that lack the industrious and religious Traits and don't have good UU's, namely Russia and England. ( Though my wife hates with a passion dealing with the English. She goes out of her way to exterminate all of Elizabeth's little cronies at every opportunity. )

I have also noticed that my top AI competitors are usually either the French, the Germans, or the Russians. That might have something to do with the fact that I usually play Asian or African civilizations and eliminate all my neighbors.

Worthingtons · February 4, 2002, 17:13

Wot?!?!?!?!

England sucks on this game

Arrian · February 4, 2002, 17:54

Well, there are many different opinions about the relative strength of the civ attributes. For instance, you say Religious is of limited use. I deem it to be the best trait in the game. Then you have to consider your world settings. The English are indeed garbage on the normal, small and tiny maps, but I would be willing to bet they're pretty solid on large and huge worlds.

As for deliberately weak UU's, I think it's possible... but unlikely to have been finely balanced and tested to death (that would be kinda out of character, wouldn't it?).

The Babylonian bowman, for instance, is a pretty weak unit, and it isn't useful for very long. Upgrade path isn't very good, either (longbowmen). I consider the Babs to be a very stong civ (though I think that is partially due to the fact that I play on Normal maps... they would probably be weaker on large or huge). So that jives with your theory - strong civ, weak UU.

But then there is the case of the Persians. This is a moderately strong civ (my opinion, clealry), with an excellent UU.

The Iroquois are a decent civ with a fantastic UU.

*shrug*

-Arrian

Blaupanzer · February 4, 2002, 18:19

English do well on large maps, but get scattered a bit by jumping good sites discinnected from their main empire. The Babs build a solid but smallish civ. Their generally early Golden Age is a disadvantage. The Persians tend to play out, falling behind by Industrial Age despite a usually good start. The Aztecs either thrive (requiring a coalition of all the other civs to keep them from depopulating whole continents) or suck (stuck in a perpetual round robin of warfare with the Zulus, Irriquois, and or Americans until they are ground away.

Aeson · February 4, 2002, 19:11

I think most of the Civs are pretty well balanced. Each has its area of expertise. The Americans and English kind of get shafted though, as their UU's are almost worthless. Most other UU's can be used effectively, though ones that block the horse upgrade path can be annoying. On the other hand, the Iroquois and Persians do well with almost any playstyle because of decent traits, and great UU's. The other Civs all seem to have their niche, and do quite well at it.

Worthingtons · February 4, 2002, 19:21

I play the English by default, On Every Game I play, Becuase, erm... I come from England

, But I am completely unhappy with the way we are on the game.

Lets have a Look -

Expansionist , Well, We started out on a Tiny Ireland So I can see why we possess this Quality. I Hate it, Yes, I love the Early Tech, and I do play on Largish (not huge mind) Maps, but come on, what use is Early Tech realisically?? For the first 40 turns you dont NEED City Improvements, and you get Masonry (Pyramids) by Trading with Industrius civ. IMO the advantage of Early Tech cannot Justify a FULL civ advantage.

Commercial - Everyone hates Corruption, Me Included, but anyone who really wants to Enjoy a game, will hack this with the Editor. I Increase the Optimal number of cites (by about 70%, not to 512!) and make Temples&Barracks reduce corruption , So my advantage is diminished further!!

and The UU , OMG! , This has to be the most useless Unit in Existance!!

This is what we should have been given :-

Expansionist - BUT, this quality should also make Setters slightly cheaper to build, becuase at current it's not good enough!!!

Industrious - Why? Becuase Who Started the Industrial f****** Revolution?? Yes! It was the Glorious English.

Now, as for UU, Since The English just about Invented everything in History after 1000ad , it woudnt have been hard to find us a decent UU . I can see why we got a naval unit, but come on, what about our ships around the WW2 Era, Our Naval Power was COMPLELY UnMatched!!, Oh, and Not to Forget Spitfires. Mind, the Problem with them is that the Unit's come too late, So, If someone had thought back to the Times of Gunpowder, how about giving us out version of Riflemen, Since We Invented That too!!!!!!

This Game was designed by a GERMAN!

Worthingtons · February 4, 2002, 19:53

Here you are Firaxis

The English Spitfire!

Attack Strenth 6
Defense Strenth 2
Operational Range 4
Bombard Strength 2
Bombard Range 0
Rate of Fire 1

This would make a Decent But not Overpowered UU (Rememeber Defensive Air Units can play Little, If any part in a game so)

OR

English Musketmen, This type of unit was used a lot in the times when our GLORIOUS Empire came to Control a Quarter of the World (Yes FIRAXIS, thats probably more than the other Empires in this game, so give us respect right!), So it Would natrually be decent on the Attack as well as defense...

So attack and defense of 4, Coming with Gunpowder, and With a Shield cost of 7.

vmxa1 · February 5, 2002, 00:47

I agree with you that the UU is lame. I would not agrue much with boast of inventing everything after 1000ad, if you cap it at around 1850ad, after that you invented basically nothing.

Worthingtons · February 5, 2002, 05:09

So thats 850 years being the Worlds Pioneers, Which leaves Americans erm... 250 ...

Face it, England Has the Greatest History of Empire left standing!

God Save the Queen

Aeson · February 5, 2002, 06:13

Dean Kamen's Segway

Maybe the American UU should be a 2 movement rate worker that can only go on completely improved terrain tiles

Now that would be innovative!

Some other "great" US patented inventions:

http://totallyabsurd.com/absurd.htm

Recommended: Bunny Syringe, Portable Nuclear Shelter, Kissing Shield, Wig Flipper, Cricket Gun.

It would also seem the Chinese have done some inventing of their own!

http://www.chindogu.com/

And for you Rothy, some UK patents!

http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk/pedrick.html

Worthingtons · February 5, 2002, 09:40

My God

Quote:

UK Patent No. GB1047735. Piping snow and ice balls from Antarctica to irrigate the Australian desert. The patent suggests this will solve the world famine problem. The snowballs accelerate under gravity from 10,000 feet (3,000m) high on the Antarctic plateau, reaching 500 miles per hour (800km/hr) at sea level. They are then pumped naturally through the pipelines, by the Coriolis force due to the Earth's rotation.

And I was worrying about a UU , Clearly a 'Pedrick Worker' , Who can irrigate desert tiles in One Turn when they within say, 15 sqares of an Ice Mountain!

Thrawn05 · February 5, 2002, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Rothy
So thats 850 years being the Worlds Pioneers, Which leaves Americans erm... 250 ...

Face it, England Has the Greatest History of Empire left standing!

God Save the Queen

greatest empire?

ROMA VICTOR!

AJ Corp. The FAIR · February 5, 2002, 14:19

In Master of Orion 2 one had the great option to customize different breeds with your personal favourite skills.

IMO a feature like this wouldn't be so hard to include:

ability to customize the characteristics of the civilization (two free picks).

Also, i really like the concept of special units: it makes several civilizations wothwhile, whilst otherwise they wouldn't: I dislike the Zulu traits, but from time to time I like playing Impi's.

So in a latter CIV-phase I would like to have every civ having different special units for each distinctive period (totalling 4!). Some special units may have similar specifics to others.

This would spice up the game considerably.
The more attractive the UU's, the more difficult the choice, the longer the game will 'stand the test of time'.

PS: Did you English guys know that the Flemish (Antwerp, Bruges, Gent) and the Northern Italian peoples had the first European cities to prosper during the Middle Ages (starting in the 12th century) and that the Flemish (up to WW1) allways caught up technologically second (after England)? Of course, Belgium is a rather ... lilliputesk country on a world scale ... nevertheless ...

Dienstag · February 6, 2002, 01:56

Civ III - each civ starts with 2 of 6 civ-specific traits, that endure throughout the whole game. Adds somewhat to replayability. Makes balancing somewhat of a challenge.

Master of Orion 2 - each race starts with a handful of unique factors (I forget how many possible, it's been a while). Player may customize race at beginning. Correct me if wrong, but I think the factors stay the same throughout the game for everybody. Adds a bit more replayability, I suppose, for about the same challenge in balancing.

My ideal CivIV - each civ starts as a generic tribe, and gains various bonusses and penalties based on WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE GAME SO FAR. This includes the units it builds, so no pre-canned civ-specific units at the beginning. I expect that would be the pinnacle of replayability, but I'm not sure how difficult it would be to program (most likely very difficult... but one can hope). Since the number of possible trait combinations will be astronomically higher, balancing will have to be taken to another level (meta-balancing?) One requirement would be a really good AI. I don't realistically expect this anytime soon.

So, regardless of how well the nations in CivIII are balanced, I guess I'd be more impressed with the designers if they made an unbalanced (but thoroughly modifyable) CivIV.

KLIN-TONN · February 6, 2002, 02:35

when you say "generic tribes" do you mean all the same? As in: a tribe would become a people and a people a civilization with an identity dependent on how the civ had conducted itself? IOW, my civ's identity (Japanese, French, Romans) is determined by the game itself?

Man. That would be cool - and yet, I'm sure, impossible.

Aeson · February 6, 2002, 02:43

There were a lot of features in SMAC that would have been great if they were included in Civ3. Social Engineering and the Unit Workshop really added a lot of options. It wasn't all that balanced, but it was fun to play around and design your own units.

Thrawn05 · February 6, 2002, 13:24

IMHO, the UUs in this game are not that great. Most of them just increase an ability by one, whether it be movement, offense, defense, etc... And considering the combat system in the game (which I am generaly happy with IMO), don't really make much of a difference (except those who have an extra movement like the Jag Warrior and Impi).

Ironikinit · February 6, 2002, 16:08

Let's face it, the Americans and English got screwed. A lame UU coupled with expansionistic. They both need good UUs!

How about a revolutionary musketman for the US? 2/4/1 but moves with explorer movement (treats all terrain as road).

For the English, a Yeoman, 5/1/1, an improvement of the longbowman. Really, the longbow should be a crossbowman, and the English should get a 5/1/1 longbow as their UU.

Both of these come early enough to trigger a good, possibly great GA.

The only way I can see a worthwhile naval UU is if it's quite early and has a movement bonus. Namely, a galley with a move of four. Exploration is what navy is best for in the game, other than transport. And an air UU? I completely fail to see the advantage.

Windwalker · February 17, 2002, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Let's face it, the Americans and English got screwed. A lame UU coupled with expansionistic. They both need good UUs!

How about a revolutionary musketman for the US? 2/4/1 but moves with explorer movement (treats all terrain as road).

For the English, a Yeoman, 5/1/1, an improvement of the longbowman. Really, the longbow should be a crossbowman, and the English should get a 5/1/1 longbow as their UU.

Both of these come early enough to trigger a good, possibly great GA.

The only way I can see a worthwhile naval UU is if it's quite early and has a movement bonus. Namely, a galley with a move of four. Exploration is what navy is best for in the game, other than transport. And an air UU? I completely fail to see the advantage.

Well, they can fix the American UU if they allowed fighter planes to dogfight....

- Windwalker

Thrawn05 · February 18, 2002, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Windwalker

Well, they can fix the American UU if they allowed fighter planes to dogfight....

- Windwalker

I'm working on the editor, I want to see how that works out. But waiting for moedern times to role around is a pain in the...

I guess I should just set their cost to zero, with no tech or resources needed, so that all the civs can build them from the start. That would be fun

Oerdin · February 18, 2002, 18:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Rothy
So thats 850 years being the Worlds Pioneers, Which leaves Americans erm... 250 ...

Face it, England Has the Greatest History of Empire left standing!

God Save the Queen

Grrr, the empire was British nee English!

korn469 · February 18, 2002, 19:46

if you want fighters to dog fight do the followings

*bump up chance to intercept air mission (the higher the more of a chance a battle will happen, and the more useful air superiority is)
*make fighters have similar attack and defense values so that the outcome of the dog fight isn't predetermined
*bump up fighters bombard abilities a little

all of these things together should make dog fights much more likely, and from what soren said in the chat on friday they have added a new value that should make the AI smarter about using units with a defensive AI in offensive roles if they have good enough stats, but too bad we'll have to wait and see

Windwalker · February 19, 2002, 04:53

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
if you want fighters to dog fight do the followings

*bump up chance to intercept air mission (the higher the more of a chance a battle will happen, and the more useful air superiority is)
*make fighters have similar attack and defense values so that the outcome of the dog fight isn't predetermined
*bump up fighters bombard abilities a little

all of these things together should make dog fights much more likely, and from what soren said in the chat on friday they have added a new value that should make the AI smarter about using units with a defensive AI in offensive roles if they have good enough stats, but too bad we'll have to wait and see

Well, I don't think the AI would use the fighters at all in that capacity if the values were changed in the editor. In general, I'm not sure if the AI is capable of handling rule changes all that well (except maybe just base attack and defense values of normal units, as long as it's clear that one's an attacking unit and one's a defensive unit).

- Windwalker

Pius Popprasch · February 19, 2002, 11:53

I think that Industrious is the second worst of the abilities. I can actually afford to have a second worker and sometimes I even employ foreign workers. And there isn't much beyond that. 2 Shields for a metropolis. Commercial will give you more production boost than Industrious.
And why is Industrious and Commercial a good combination?? Scientific and Commercial add really to each other. Commercial gives more trade and the Scientist makes better use of the additional trade.
Religious is #1. And it combines decently with Militaristic.

Arrian · February 19, 2002, 12:10

Industrious has two other advantages you didn't mention:

1) Start the game with Masonry. That's a valueable tech, and allows you to start on the Pyramids whenever you want.

2) The 2x worker speed doesn't matter much in the mid to late game, when you have lots of workers, but in the very beginning, it really jumpstarts expansion.

Commerical is ok and all, and I imagine it matters more on large/huge maps (I play normal) because you have lots more cities on those size maps. A small corruption decrease due to the commercial attribute can be powerful if multiplied over hundreds of cities. I rate it as a middle-of-the-pack trait.

I agree that Religious is #1. For me, scientific and industrious are also strong traits (hence my affection for the Babs and Egyptians). Expansionist may well be stronger post-1.17, so it may climb out of the #6 spot (again, normal maps... it wasn't #6 on large or huge even pre-1.17). I still think militaristic is garbage... either #5 or 6.

-Arrian

Windwalker · February 19, 2002, 12:53

Industrious isn't that great for the production bonus (it is only 1 shield per 7+ city right?). However, the 2x worker bonus is VERY useful at the beginning of the game, where you can't afford to build too many workers (in fact, I rarely build another one until I have at least 4-5 cities up). This makes your initial worker very important, and if he works twice as fast, it is a great advantage. Therefore, I think the order of traits goes something like this:

1) Religious. You save on at least 10 turns of anarchy a game (who knows how much shield and commerce this is!), you get cheap temples and cathedrals (which I build in almost every city), and you can switch back and forth between a communism and democracy at will, which basically makes this an unrivaled civ trait.

2) Industrious. Production bonus is marginal, but worker bonus is awesome, esp. if you expand really quickly. In most of my games, my workers never run out of things to do until the modern ages, so 2x speed workers is twice the efficiency for 75% of the game.

3) Scientific. 3 free techs + cheaper science buildings. Not a game breaker, but useful, and it really does help you get a tech lead over non-scientific civs.

4) Expansionist. Chance of free settlers is now greater with the patch, so this makes for an improved (if still highly variable) trait. If you get extremely lucky (i've heard of people popping 5 settlers in a game), this can even be the #1 trait for a particular game.

5) Commercial. A little decreased corruption + 1 commerce per 7+ city make this a marginally beneficial trait. I hardly notice the corruption bonus or the commerce bonus, but I guess it's there...

6) Militaristic. Barracks are already cheap, walls are almost useless. Chance of promotion is only slightly better than that of non-militaristic. However, I often do play militaristic civs when I'm playing conquest just to get in the spirit

- Windwalker

Ironikinit · February 19, 2002, 18:28

Let's not forget that militaristic civs get cheap airports and harbors, too. Harbors help city growth, obviously, and cheap ones increase the value of coastal cities. Airports come in real handy when attacking other continents.

I may just be defending militaristic since I'm familiar with it. I really didn't notice the early speed bonus of the worker when I tried industrial civs. I didn't notice the bonus from commercial at all, but I've only played the French to completion once.

The extra heroes are nice, but after a certain point you really don't need them. And they can't be counted on. Anyway, here's how I rank the attributes:

1. Religious
2. Militaristic
3. Scientific
4, 5, 6. Don't matter, I only play Babylon, Germany, Japan and the Aztecs. I really do think that Expansionist is junk but there may have been changes to how that works in the patch. How the huts work, I mean.

Add playing the other civs to the I'll get around to it someday list.

Arrian · February 20, 2002, 10:56

The reason I don't think militaristic is really all that special is that getting leaders is really hit-or-miss anyway. I played the Germans once, and I got a grand total of 1 leader while destroying 3 AI empires (yeah, I used him right away, so it wasn't like he was sitting around preventing another leader from showing up).

Yet, in my first 1.17 game, I've gotten four leaders as the non-militaristic Egyptians, and that's w/o the heroic epic (the leaders became the Pyramids, Sun Tzu, and Hoover, and I've just gotten the fourth. I'm not yet sure what I will do with him).

Go figure.

-Arrian