Tweet
In the main discussion thread the question was raised if we, when we're making an Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack, should change the existing civs as well? The polls about esp. the Zulu and the Iroquois suggest that many people think these civs should be replaced and we should thus be 'allowed' to mess with the existing civs but with this thread I would like to find out how many people would have real objections (and thus would not use the Pack when finished) to making any changes to the existing civs. 'Changes' here can be anything: removing/replacing civs, changing the UU/CSAs/leaders, fixing typo's or obvious mistakes (I've spotted at least 2 already), anything at all... If a reasonable number of people want to go both ways, we can consider an compromise (FE release 2 versions), if a large mayority of people votes for (not) making changes, we'll go with whatever people voted for (and those who oppose the decision will simply have to go to the trouble of making changes or undoing them him/herself or not use the Pack at all).
Explanation on 'game balance purposes': you should think in terms of preventing we end up with 4 civs with Expansionist/Commercial ability, that there are too many naval Unique Units in the game or UU with identical stats, etc. In this case we'll try to keep the existing stuff the same as much as possible and only make changes in 'emergency situations'. It's quite possible these situations won't occur at all.
Explanation of 'most glaring errors': In this case we won't do a complete revamp of all city lists and change UUs, leaders, etc whenever we feel (or whatever) but we will only things that are blatantly wrong (FE replace the Zulu, fix only the most obvious flaws in city lists) but not go any further than strictly necessary. (Personally I would very much like to have a good look at the generals and city lists and perhaps 1 or 2 of the leaders and unique units, some room for serious improvement there - that would go beyond fixing the 'most glaring errors')
Explanation on 'game balance purposes': you should think in terms of preventing we end up with 4 civs with Expansionist/Commercial ability, that there are too many naval Unique Units in the game or UU with identical stats, etc. In this case we'll try to keep the existing stuff the same as much as possible and only make changes in 'emergency situations'. It's quite possible these situations won't occur at all.
Explanation of 'most glaring errors': In this case we won't do a complete revamp of all city lists and change UUs, leaders, etc whenever we feel (or whatever) but we will only things that are blatantly wrong (FE replace the Zulu, fix only the most obvious flaws in city lists) but not go any further than strictly necessary. (Personally I would very much like to have a good look at the generals and city lists and perhaps 1 or 2 of the leaders and unique units, some room for serious improvement there - that would go beyond fixing the 'most glaring errors')
Comment