Let's gather all Balance Issues in Civilization 5 Here!

[Zoetstofzoetje]

I have linked this list (and the interface one) in our testers' forum. Firaxis was undoubtedly watching this on Poly already, but hopefully my link, which includes lists from other sites, will help keep things easy to find.

yin, out of curiosity, how do you guys interpret and build on the forums' comments? is there a formal info accumulation process? do you submit and track bugs/improvements/balance issues?

i'm assuming you guys ignore the 'civ4bts was great you changed the rules now the game sucks aaaagh steam aaagh it won't run on my 486-with-turbo aaaagh where is the mighty luxemburg civ aaaagh' comments. but beyond those, what is it that you do?

/me curious

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Civ traits.
Besides, do you remember people signing research agreements before 20th century?

Yes, in one form or the other. Mostly espionage though. I remember this nice feature from Civ1; when you conquered a city from a more advanced civilization you would receive one of their technologies. Incorporating this into Civ5 ups the ante for conquest!

Reminds me of my most fond Civ memory: I was playing Civ1 as the English, laid back on the island with just London. By the time I got a trireme i put a settler on it with a militia and went all the way around Asia towards Australia. By the time I arrived ironclads were harassing London. The turn after I built Sydney the Americans took over London, and I was 1000 turns behind on research. It wasn't a problem, as I found an unprotected Chinese city near Singapore. It gave me the tech to build armor (tank). Using a diplomat I stole a few more techs, and most of the goody huts gave me some more. After this I built a mighty stack of doom that conquered the world in the nick of time. Good times

[yin26]

yin, out of curiosity, how do you guys interpret and build on the forums' comments? is there a formal info accumulation process? do you submit and track bugs/improvements/balance issues?

i'm assuming you guys ignore the 'civ4bts was great you changed the rules now the game sucks aaaagh steam aaagh it won't run on my 486-with-turbo aaaagh where is the mighty luxemburg civ aaaagh' comments. but beyond those, what is it that you do?

/me curious

Well, I signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), so I cannot comment in too much detail. But it's no surprise that not all players will like all (or any) change, so those threads, unless they suggest some good idea for a fix or improvement, don't help the current game. Maybe they could plant seeds for Civ6?

This is why I think organized lists of issues and feasible requests (although it's not always clear what's feasible, of course) are so valuable. The developers only have so much time to be reading the forums. Anybody can read or post, but how many can open up the Civ5 code and actually make a good change for the public to use? [Yes, modders are massively important just for that reason, too, and Civ5 is trying to be the most modder-friendly Civ yet.] So it's really vital, in my view, to have an efficient feedback process that, as much as possible, represents the collective wisdom of the fans.

By no means, of course, does this mean that every great idea will or even CAN be implement in the time left. However, that's different, clearly, from something being ignored. I don't think any productive discussion is being ignored (although it might be easy to miss if it's not visible)! To that end, Poly and the other forums have a hugely important role to play.

Finally, I think it has been an amazing move for Firaxis to involve testers in the way it has from Civ4 onward. Soren Johnson (lead designer of Civ4) deserves great credit for that, and he has publicly noted how helpful it was for him. I say this whether or not I have been personally involved. Some of the testers in our group (and some on these forums!) seem near geniuses to me in some of their posts, and I take great comfort knowing that they have a good way to contribute on behalf of us all.

There, too, of course, the realities and limitations of time and money mean that the best ideas are often the ones that can actually be implemented without breaking something else.

[pdxsean]

My biggest balance issue is the late game economy. Fielding an identical number of units, you will go from prosperous to bankrupt during the industrial era, unless you manage to build Stock Exchanges in every city. Even then, you still have to have a lot of trading posts in each town. I feel that being required to have such a high TP ratio, as well as being required to have a specific building doesn't do much for balance. Not to mention you still can't build a massive army with a modest-sized civ.

[MxM]

I strongly recommend each poster to mention whether he/she talks about SP or MP or both. It is quite often that unbalances are OK and even enjoyable in SP. Even civ traits is fine to have imbalanced - it is additional way to regulate difficulty of the game.

[Guynemer]

I second what pdxsean mentioned about escalating support costs for armies. It doesn't need to be eliminated, just toned down a bit.


Another balance issue can be filed under "unintended consequences". I love to concept of embarked units, so much more convenient. However, the old system had the advantage of transports at least being able to defend themselves.

The problem really comes to light in MP. With simultaneous turns, a player can quickly move their caravels around your frigates (or destroyers!) to take out your embarked units without giving you a chance to defend your forces.

Either embarked units from an advanced age should not be autokilled by obsolete naval units (damaged, sure, but not autokilled), or escorted embarked units should be autodefended by any and all escorts within movement range. At the very least, allow us to stack embarked units with naval units.

[MxM]

or escorted embarked units should be autodefended by any and all escorts within movement range.

I thought that there is ZOC for the naval units, and any unit that enters it, looses turns. This ZOC should be the radius of the weapon, which means at least 2 hexes for naval units. So if you surround your units with 3-4 naval units, nobody should be able to attack them - you should be able to shoot first because they should lose turns trying to get withing shooting distance... Is not it how it works? I never played MP so I do not know...

[Guynemer]

Didn't seem to work like that, but I'd have to try again.

[pdxsean]

I thought that there is ZOC for the naval units, and any unit that enters it, looses turns. This ZOC should be the radius of the weapon, which means at least 2 hexes for naval units. So if you surround your units with 3-4 naval units, nobody should be able to attack them - you should be able to shoot first because they should lose turns trying to get withing shooting distance... Is not it how it works? I never played MP so I do not know...

IIRC the ZOC for naval units doesn't quite work in the sense that moving next to a naval unit ends your turn. I believe making two consecutive ZOC moves with your naval unit ends your turn. So you can move next to an enemy, move one hex away, move next to the enemy again, and one hex away... all in the same turn.

I think your idea of the ZOC extending to the shooting range would be a real improvement over current rules.

[Guynemer]

I don't know if this is a balance issue, exactly, but food resources seem a bit underpowered, given the bonuses from maritime CS. How about making food resources also count as luxuries? It would help to alleviate some of the happiness issues as well, and give some more options for trade.

[Fidel]

Food resources definitely became nothing more than a piece of graphics. Once health was removed and food yield brought down overall, they are underwhelming.
Also, once you get civil service, you have every incentive to spam sheep and cow pastures with farms. As far as I recall, it was not exactly like that in England, right?

[Proteus_MST]

I don't know if this is a balance issue, exactly, but food resources seem a bit underpowered, given the bonuses from maritime CS. How about making food resources also count as luxuries? It would help to alleviate some of the happiness issues as well, and give some more options for trade.

I second this...
in Civ IV it made sense to settle near a food resource (due to its health bonus for all connected cities)...
in Civ V however I don´t care too much about them, I mean honestly...there doesn´t seem to be a difference between a plains that has a pasture with cattle on it and a plains with a farm on it...both give 1 extra food for the tile (with the farm AFAIK having the added bonus of getting a second extra food with the discovery of biology).

Having food as some kind of 2nd rate luxury that gives your civ maybe something between 1-3 happiness would change this considerably

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Well, I signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), so I cannot comment in too much detail. But it's no surprise that not all players will like all (or any) change, so those threads, unless they suggest some good idea for a fix or improvement, don't help the current game. Maybe they could plant seeds for Civ6?

This is why I think organized lists of issues and feasible requests (although it's not always clear what's feasible, of course) are so valuable. The developers only have so much time to be reading the forums. Anybody can read or post, but how many can open up the Civ5 code and actually make a good change for the public to use? [Yes, modders are massively important just for that reason, too, and Civ5 is trying to be the most modder-friendly Civ yet.] So it's really vital, in my view, to have an efficient feedback process that, as much as possible, represents the collective wisdom of the fans.

By no means, of course, does this mean that every great idea will or even CAN be implement in the time left. However, that's different, clearly, from something being ignored. I don't think any productive discussion is being ignored (although it might be easy to miss if it's not visible)! To that end, Poly and the other forums have a hugely important role to play.

Finally, I think it has been an amazing move for Firaxis to involve testers in the way it has from Civ4 onward. Soren Johnson (lead designer of Civ4) deserves great credit for that, and he has publicly noted how helpful it was for him. I say this whether or not I have been personally involved. Some of the testers in our group (and some on these forums!) seem near geniuses to me in some of their posts, and I take great comfort knowing that they have a good way to contribute on behalf of us all.

There, too, of course, the realities and limitations of time and money mean that the best ideas are often the ones that can actually be implemented without breaking something else.

interesting stuff, thanks!

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Simple fixes to complicated problems from Dr. Z:

Problem: conquest is punished ad infinitum, either through happiness and/or economy.
Solution: convert cities to 'native' status after 25 turns with a courthouse. demolish courthouse in the process or greatly diminish the cost after full conversion. former capitals are excluded in this process for balance, to retain some long-term cost for conquest. cities that are being integrated have even more unhappiness than is now the case, but such unhappiness diminishes every turn over the course of those 25 turns and is significantly lower when city is garrisoned.

Problem: unhappiness modifier is too humble.
Solution: unhappiness beyond -10 leads to the possibility of independence in puppet states. puppet states are bound into groups based on their original allegiance/founder. such an event spawns a new civ and leads to a 'civil war'. following this event the new civ loses 1/2 population in each city and receives a garrisoned top-notch random war unit in return. winning the civil war is based on re-conquering the capital city within 25 turns. if that capital is not conquered in time the new civ is there to stay.

Problem: puppet states are uncontrollable commercial vampires and resource-hogs. real-world experience with e.g. USSR shows that this was actually the other way around.
Solution: puppet states do not grow, science at 25%, hammers contribute 25% to capital but do not build units or buildings in their own cities. commerce calculated per city, any profits after maintenance go to empire at 50% (the rest goes to support drunken orgies for the puppet regime). garrison a requirement, otherwise a chance that city might defect from empire to become independent city-state. puppets have own cultural boundaries on the basis of their former civ's identity. puppets from same previous civ operate as a whole. mother country can buy these tiles through adjacent native cities at half price.

Problem: food resources are not really bonuses any more.
Solution: double the bonus when the technologies for better farms and wood logging are discovered, to balance the bonus. cities with more than one local food resource bonus have a 'food diversity' bonus leading to faster growth; the more the merrier. this simulates the health bonus in real life when the population has a diverse cuisine. food diversity bonus disappears after discovery of the globalization tech, and is replaced with an empire-based small diversity bonus, unless the tradition track has been chosen, in which case the bonus accumulates with double strength at the capital.

Problem: city-states are too passive and exploitable.
Solution: more city-states per map, but production and culture in relation to normal civs at 50%. neighbouring city-states fight wars amongst each other. city-states that grow to 3 cities spawn as full-fledged civs and assume one of the civ identities. donated money is used to build an army, so that there's a big downside to gifting money.

Problem: diplomatic victory is too easy.
Solution: buying votes from city-states only possible if city-state has been an ally for more than 25 turns.

Problem: navies are too slow. no reason why they should be as they no longer carry units.
Solution: double or triple range for anything except triremes. embarked units remain slow, and cost money/maintenance to convert to ships. remove pillaging sea resources as an option (was not realistic anyway). zone of control of ships tripled, which slows down enemy ships. ships can be anchor-fortified, in times of war these automatically bombard enemy ships that fare within range.

Problem: no airports. (why??)
Solution: add airport as a building with advanced flight. one unit per turn can be airlifted to/from any other airport, like in previous civs.

Problem: not enough variation in rideable animals. why can't we have warthog-riders, bull-riders in the same way as elephant riders?
Suggestion: add possibility to domesticate animals for alternatives to horsemen in an expansion. africa gets the warthog, aztecs the dog brigade, vikings wolf-riders, etc. giraffe-archers have longer range. this adds flavour to resource-context.

Problem: bombardment range does not decrease damage over longer distance.
Solution: detract from combat damage based on distance. this means shooting at something far away is not as effective as shooting something at point-blank. add bombardment possibility for gunpowder units with strong detractions for distance, as bullets are small. no indirect fire possibility for these.

Problem: war-units disappear from city after city conquest
Solution: conquest of a city buffs war-units from the vestige at half health.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

By the way, in a future expansion or mod I would be interested in dispensing with workers and settlers altogether, at least until the modern era. Instead, war units should be able to build fortresses, which over time can grow into cities if they are connected by roads to the trade network. Also, tile improvement should be built in cities. You should be able to assign a citizen to 'upgrade' the land for a particular improvement. That way we can finally get rid of those tedious worker routines, and just assign an x amount of citizens to upgrade the land as part of a city works list. No settlers also means more organic growth. Considering how much you guys love organic in civ5, this must have been a consideration at some point, right?