What Kind of Simple Balancing Changes Would You Like to See in Future Patches?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I hate the egyptian obelisk.

ok, you can use 2 priests, but I'm not going to have a whole lot of excess citizens to use for that pre-calendar.

Great Prophet gambits: Religion denial, Bureaucracy, Shrine Religion spread, etc. You have to work to make it shine, unlike most of the other UBs. Calendar can be delayed to get more mileage out of the Priests - Chichen Itza comes to mind.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by Prussia
Units that require some buffing:

-Navy SEAL

I suggest replacing these with Minutemen, which either:

A.) Are a "foil" to Redcoats as a nod to the Revolutionary War, replacing Grenadiers (even though they may not lob explosives per se).

B.) Replace Riflemen, but get something like 25% Withdrawal or Woodsman II.

[monkspider]

One other small change I would like to see would be to automatically grant the leadership promotion to Warlord units. Blake has outlined reasons why this promotion is very rarely worthwhile in the current version of the game and others have expressed that it is generally better to use GGs on military academies/military instructors. This would give the warlord units a respectable boost and actually give the leadership promo some use.

[eris]

A diplomacy tweak I saw mentioned: Every time I get a request/demand to end trade with or declare war on a third civ, I should get some positive diplomacy effect with that third civ for refusing, a +1 or something for "You stood up for us against our treacherous enemies." The demands should be an opportunity for bonuses as well as penalties.

[samspock]

They should devide the eras in half and have each civ get one uu/ub in the first half and another in the second.

[Jaybe]

Major change proposal (perhaps too big for a patch).

Siege units reduce city defenses by a smaller absolute, not relative, amount.

So, instead of a cannon reducing by 20% relative (so it takes 5 bombardments regardless of initial strength), give it 10% absolute so it would reduce a 20% city in 2 turns, but would take 6 turns to reduce a 60% city. The occasional 80% city would take 8 turns.

Why should a catapult or treb reduce the defenses of a walled city at the same speed it reduced a 20% city?

[Blaupanzer]

Re: Major change proposal (perhaps too big for a patch).

Originally posted by Jaybe
Siege units reduce city defenses by a smaller absolute, not relative, amount.

So, instead of a cannon reducing by 20% relative (so it takes 5 bombardments regardless of initial strength), give it 10% absolute so it would reduce a 20% city in 2 turns, but would take 6 turns to reduce a 60% city. The occasional 80% city would take 8 turns.

Why should a catapult or treb reduce the defenses of a walled city at the same speed it reduced a 20% city?

This is a great idea, and definitely not too big for a patch. At least ought to get careful consideration at the other expansion. Also could be based on the strength plus relative promotions for attacking the defense just as it is for attacking the units. I have wondered why a treb can bring down a 100% city in four turns, the same as a 40% city. Makes no logical sense at all. What's the point of building up the defenses if the seige units treat any percentage just the same?