umeu wrote:Goodspeed wrote:umeu wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Yeah which would make it harder to age early, which Brit tends to do on a food or wood start.
I guess it might be a bit too much though. It would also disable the TP start.
Maybe replace with a food crate instead.
Actually I don't like it anymore. Guess I'm just desperate to find something that doesn't directly nerf the civ bonus, which is the type of change that appears in my nightmares.
Fixed crates pls
Well, i don't see why balancing civ bonuses is problematic.
It tends to make builds/play styles unique to the civ less viable, as was the case here. I agree with balancing a civ bonus if it's the only way to balance a civ (or all the alternatives are even worse) and that's why we went for this. But I will never stop looking for alternatives, or excuses to suggest reverting it.
Its not the case though? Brits still spam manors, and they still go vc. And its still strong vs other civs, and also still the best option brits has.
Is it? I rarely see Brits go VC and/or manor boom (by which I mean boom to /150+ pop in early colonial) in streamed matches. Anyway I didn't say unviable, just less viable. Maybe not by much, but any amount is unwanted imo.
I mean, RE has just somewhat arbitrarily fixed the number for manors on 135, something which was probably not the first number they came up with. Why is that number so sacred that it cant be changed... and that youd rather make 10 other changes to achieve a balance that can be achieved with 1.
RE changed manor cost? I could've sworn it has been 135 from when I first started playing. Yeah, 135 is probably not the first number, seems likely that was either 100 or 150. Whoever was responsible for the decision at the time surely had their reasons of eventually settling on 135, like we had our reasons for increasing it. It's obviously not sacred to me since the change was made on my watch (something you seem to be forgetting?) but that doesn't stop me from continuing the search for alternatives or suggesting, at the earliest opportunity, to at least consider reverting it like in this case when other civs are getting buffs, Brit doesn't seem all that strong and the change may not have been needed in the first place.
I suppose the main reason I'm so opposed to changes like this is the precedent it sets. Nerfing a civ bonus is the easiest way to balance a civ, and it's a reflex that should be resisted.