Are the Civilizaion abilities balanzed?

[Jeje2]

We have now been talkng about new civilization abilities for the expansion pack for a while. While I was just posting about additional abilities, I started to think that: Are the current abilities balanzed?

Take a look at the Firaxis list at Civ3 official site.

While I looked at them I started to think that is Expansionit underbalansed compared to the others when it has as effect 2 only an scout for you at the beginning?

So is it balanzed?
Of course it would help estimating if I knew which science is required for scout.
But anyway I now do think that maybe expansionist would need someting else/more as effect 2. (Ex. incresed sightrange +1 for scouts)

What do you think, are the abilities balanzed or...?

[monolith94]

Depends on if it's a Protoss scout
A horseman
Or just a 1/1/1 warrior

[Urban Ranger]

A scout, I reckon, is probably a 0/1/3 unit who treats all terrain as clear.

At any rate, the expasionistic ability also gives a player better odds at exploring goodie huts. How much better? If it's good enough to negate the possibility of babarians, it's not a half bad ability. It can be downright too powerful.

[tniem]

I am under the belief that expansion is one of the better abilities.

Are the abilities balanced? I would hope so. I hope they have tested them enough. But if they are still fideling with the atributes here a month and a half before release than they haven't had time to teach the AI to use the attributes and the game could use some more time in the oven.

[d_dudy]

expansionist sounds good off the bat but it's scientific that's gonna rule. especially for peaceful players. religous seems kinda week, all it's gonna do is make it easier to keep your people happy. no anarchy is kinda week.

so, i think scientific is the best along with militaristic and industrious

[Tarquinius]

I agree with you d_dudy, that Scientific and Industious are really good abilities, but Militaristic is one of the weaker ones IMO.
Its first advantage is more chance of a battlefield promotion. That is quite useless, because if I play agressively, then I build a Barracks in each city, so I would have veterans automaticly.
The second advantage (less costs to build miltary improvements)
sounds OK to me, but not better than other advantages.

Religious sounds weak indeed, but commercial looks fine to me.
Commercial and Scientific sounds as a terrific combo to me (less corruption means more science, and the science can be boosted by cheaper science improvements)

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Tarquinius
Militaristic is one of the weaker ones IMO.
Its first advantage is more chance of a battlefield promotion. That is quite useless, because if I play agressively, then I build a Barracks in each city, so I would have veterans automaticly.

Civ3 has three leevels of morale (regular - veteran - elite) and also 'great leader units' that are sometimes spawned when an elite unit wins a battle. I guess that barracks will produce veterans, while you actually will have to fight (and win) to get elite units. So, the 'militaristic' ability may be quite a good choice for agressive players.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I think that any civ who has both Commerce and Scientific is way too strong. Commerce means that they get 1 more trade per square which already has it. More trade, faster new techs. The Golden Age also adds 1 more trade per square which already has it. A scientific civ also has a faster tech discovery rate too.

[The diplomat]

I think that part of the balance comes from the fact that most attributes only really have an impact later in the game. For example, "commercial" gives the civ extra commerce in the city center, lowers corruption, and starts with alphabet. Well, when you start the game and you only have 1 city, the extra commerce in city center is not going to make a big difference. However, later in the game, when the civ has reached a dozen cities, then the extra commerce will really make a difference.
Since the attributes only really make a difference later in the game, it gives every civ an equal opportunity to develop and gain a good starting position. By the time you have become a well developped civ, you should be able to counter whatever the other civs throw at you. In this they are balanced.
The "expansionist" attribute is the exception. It is only meaningful at the very beginning. Pottery will give the civ granaries which will give the civ better pop growth. The scout and the better goody huts really only help in the beginning of the game by giving the civ an unparalled opportunity to get ahead early. If I use my scout properly, I can seize goody huts and get free tech, extra gold, even a free city when other civs encounter the unfortunate barbarian invasion. "expansionism" could really give a civ a great start but that is all it does.

If civs only got 1 ability then I would have a problem with "expansionism" being the only "early" ability. It would not match well against the other "late" abilities.

However, each civ get 2 attributes not 1. The second ability can compliment the first one, and reduce any differences. It also increases the odd that another civ will have at least one ability the same as me. This reduces any unbalance because we now share one ability.

So, I think that civs are purposely given 2 abilities to reduce any potential unbalance of a single ability!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Commerce means that they get 1 more trade per square which already has it. More trade, faster new techs. The Golden Age also adds 1 more trade per square which already has it. A scientific civ also has a faster tech discovery rate too.

According to civ3.com,

- 'Commercial' means 'extra commerce in the city center',
- 'Scientific' means 'reduced science improvements cost'.

I´d be glad if you´d share your source of information with me.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by d_dudy
expansionist sounds good off the bat but it's scientific that's gonna rule. especially for peaceful players. religous seems kinda week, all it's gonna do is make it easier to keep your people happy. no anarchy is kinda week.

so, i think scientific is the best along with militaristic and industrious

religious improvements will also add culture, so the "religious" ability does more than make your pop happy, it also helps culture. And, from what we know culture will be a significant part of the game now.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Notice that there is no "militaristic" and "commercial" civ. Since units are supported nationally by gold, giving a civ more gold would only help them be even more powerful militarily. This is why you can't have civ that is both "militaristic" and "commercial". It is too powerful. Notice again that there is no civ with both the "scientific" and "industrious" abilities. The ability to build improvements faster would make the "scientific" ability too powerful.

Before the latest developer update, the Persians were a militaristic/commercial, the Chinese a scientific/industrious civ. Moreover, whereas now the Germans are militaristic/scientific, there was no such combination in the first place, and everyone seemed to agree that it would have been way too powerfull, anyway.

diplomat, I agree with your thoughts about the 'expansionist' ability (that it is only useful in the early game), but let´s scale down our speculations about balancing this part of the game. I doubt that we have already seen the version that will go gold.

edit: the text passage I quoted stems from diplomat´s 21:41 post, which he has edited since then.

[kolpo]

I actualy think that militaristic and religious is a good combo. The ability to change as much as you want between democracy and communism is a dream for the imperialistic builder. Most warmongers will have culture problems but with the cheaper religious buildings won't that be as big aproblem as for other civs, this means also that there will be less revolts in cities, and you can stop revolts fast because you can buy religious buildings cheap if needed.

Armies sound extremely powerfull and because miltaristic leaders promote faster will miltaristic civs get mor leaders to build armies! More armies that's the real benefit of militaristic civs, combine extra armies with free government switching and a decent culture rate and you can see why this is the best combo for the imperialistic builder!

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by kolpo
I actualy think that militaristic and religious is a good combo. The ability to change as much as you want between democracy and communism is a dream for the imperialistic builder. Most warmongers will have culture problems but with the cheaper religious buildings won't that be as big aproblem as for other civs, this means also that there will be less revolts in cities, and you can stop revolts fast because you can buy religious buildings cheap if needed.

Armies sound extremely powerfull and because miltaristic leaders promote faster will miltaristic civs get mor leaders to build armies! More armies that's the real benefit of militaristic civs, combine extra armies with free government switching and a decent culture rate and you can see why this is the best combo for the imperialistic builder!

Very true. But "militaristic" and "industrious" is right up there too as a dream for warmongers. You get a strong army plus the ability to build the army faster!

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Very true. But "militaristic" and "industrious" is right up there too as a dream for warmongers. You get a strong army plus the ability to build the army faster!

quite.

but i think expanisionist/militarist would be a bit better