Hit the Americans with a nerf stick. If they really want the infantry to grow economy, then take away the free Science. The barracks first + infantry scouting and claiming ruins (while providing 3 food/wood/wealth/metal in classical) is enough of a start (might be too much - forces opponent to go barracks early and *not* getting econ growth from building a few units). The insta-wonder usually kicks in in Age II-IV, and then they have the UU infantry in the late ages.

Not sure on Lakota. I don't know if anyone has a great grasp of Lakota yet. They're wierd enough where waiting a bit to see how they pan out is better IMO than risking giving them another boost.

Jazz,

All your ideas sound good except for Spain's revealing of enemy's first city thing -- that's a bit too much.

And of course, nerf the americans.

I don't think that the Americans are terribly overpowered

I think the Americans are too fast out of the gate for a Civ that gets as many mid/late game bonuses as they do. The Science 1 start is EXTREMELY fast and helps them get Ruins hits equalling the Spanish or Iroqouis. Once they are off and running, its tough to catch them in a booming contest with most other Civs. That pretty much just leaves attacking them and with an early military that earns them money, they'll probably come out ahead on that count too (unless they fail to scout for an all-out Despot rush or somesuch).

Personally, I think removing the free Science 1 and possibly the free Scholar/University would be fine (assuming that someone doesn't spot a glaring weakness in the coming weeks). This would prevent the easy early barracks followed by a huge Ruin income (all the while earning 12-36 resources/30 seconds off of these 'scouts').

If they were a little slower off the draw, other Civs would have chance to get a head start on building up to attack or boom. As it is, the Americans can do both with little problem, so giving them the opportunity to do both, EARLIER than most other Civs is what is causing the 'problem'.

The scary thing is that people are just starting to get used to them and they already seem extremely strong. I wonder what it will look like once people have perfected strategies with them?

But honestly where I see them causing the most problems is in newbie/inters and some 'good' player's games. Experts can usually boom and stay at cap with almost any Civ which helps negate the American advantage in resource producing troops quite a bit. But the lower skilled players simply cant maintain that tight of an econ, especially while fighting. This makes the Americans seem more over the top than they might otherwise appear.

I can't believe people are asking to nerf/buff things already! The games only been out for about a week, and not all the nations have been thoroughly tested.

IMO, Americans are not terrible overpowered. Yes, they can boom well, and sci1 at start is a big advantage. To stop them, just take away their main advantages. Go classical before they do and take away their wonders. Attack them often, particularly after they build a wonder, which is when they'll be weakest because of all the resources spent. Americans are top tier no doubt, but definitely not overpowered.

Second, why does anyone think Mongols need a buff. They're one of the better civs to have. Mongol raids are killer, and the free food helps you boom. They're a good civ, and definitely don't need a buff.

[This message has been edited by Sicilian_Don (edited 05-06-2004 @ 04:31 PM).]

By definition, if a nation is top teir, that means it is more powerful than others, and therefore overpowered.

Well, honestly I just see this as 'initial impressions' of how balance is at the moment. Obviously more testing and playing has to be done before any 'real' balancing arguements can be made.

But if people dont start to discuss it now, it takes longer to get a feel for the game's balance. Now people are starting to look at Americans (and others) with a critical eye. If you give suggestions as to what you might 'nerf', that gives other people a starting point of what to look for in balance.

It also matters to get feedback at different skill levels which is something that was probably in shorter supply in a limited (mostly in-house) beta-testing. Something that might have appeared fine at one level could seem completely different at other levels.

One things for sure, Americans are by far the most popular of the Civs I've played against. I have yet to see a team game without at least one (and often two) and a majority of the 1v1's I've played have been against Americans as well. Part of that might just be 'popularity', but experience with RTS games has shown me that most people gravitate towards the 'best' Civs/Races/whatever (or at least what is perceived to be the best).

i have really yet to see a game where two people of equal skill are imbalanced because 1 is playing America and another playing some random civ. in fact of the people that i played in my skill level nations like Egypt, Inca, and iroquois have all beaten my American enemies. these are people that are in my skill range so that doesn't call for imbalance quite yet.

though iroquois still shine a bit bright in my eyes as far as balance is concerned.

TGE

matter of fact i will organize a series of games to see just how overpowered some nations are.

i will talk to some good friends of mine and see what they say, if yes than we shall see, if no then i'll ban them from RoNH jk

i am almost sure they will agree.

TGE

No, "Top Tier" just means their bonuses are particualrly good and easy for new or crappy players to exploit and appear to be skilled. I don't think there are ANY serious balance issues in this game. Every nation caters to a certain type of player. In my opinion, Americans are catering to players without finesse. Players who simply churn out troops and rush cuz they know no other way. I have met only a few really skilled players that use them all the time. Any real tactics or a good early rush, or clever defense can cripple them. Ya have to know who you're fighting and react accordingly. If you try to fight the Americans the same way as you would, say, the Nubians, you are going to lose. That system ahs been in the game since day one...you could never fight Russia the same way as Spain...its little tricks like that that make the game so much cooler than standard RTS fare.

All of the suggestions I have made (except for lakota) involve civs that most of us already have played extensively in the past. Ever since day 1, i've felt greece needed something else, as many others have stated as well. I think it is their time to get something. Also, I have a pretty good feel of where Maya and Spain probably should be. I have played them at both ends of the spectrum (OP and UP) and I feel that they have yet to find a middle ground somewhere between the two. The reason I mention Lakota is because I have seen many complaints about their poor food start mentioned in the forums, although not quite as many about america being OP.

I agree that taking away america's sci1 is a good step. Either that, or lowering/taking away the barrack reduction prices.

Regarding the mongols, I have seen and used their rush effectively. If anything, I would like to see their UU's be a bit more effective against inf. so that they have use other than raiding. After all, they are supposed to be good against HI, yet they can't hardly stand up to a unit of that type from the same age. I think it would be difficult to not admit that the anti-attrition bonus is a bit weak. Ever since they got the cavalry nerf, I felt that they needed something else, to compensate for the reduction of their "main" advantage, which is early raiding.

greece really needs something.

spain is fine i played them yesterday and think they are not too far from where they were before.

maya got hit hard, really low tier civ now

America for now is fine more tests needed

Mongols do need a little something extra now

Brits are fine

China is still better than most

Aztec is not nearly as good as Rome

Rome is near godly

Persians are good

Indians, i need to play more but so far they are damn good

Iroquois is up where Spain used to be

Turks are ok (not the best but can hold there own)

French are great

Bantu are still great

Russia is near where maya was

Dutch are good

Japan still really good

Korea is still good

Germany strong

Nubians still strong in team games

Lakota are good (only slow start if you scout poorly)

Inca needs something in ancient (they almost beg to get rushed)

Egypt is fine

TGE

[This message has been edited by TheGoodEvil (edited 05-08-2004 @ 12:00 PM).]

Thanks for the list of tested nations TheGoodEvil!

I think I'll start trying Romans, after all they were my favorite nation when the orignal RoN came out but then I lose interest in them. Hopefully it will come back.

Are Nubians the best in team games because they can get more stuff from rare resources?

I have to agree that the romans are very powerful especially with the sci1, mil1 start and drunken strategy. I've seen them played a lot more since the offensive tourny and I think players are starting to really make them a strong force.

I think that turk is at least middle tier. Spain, IMO is at the bottom, and I think nubians are middle tier all the way around. Russia is a strong middle tier now, I think. The others I pretty much agree with, but I think germ. and france are near the top.

what makes turks mid tier?
play 1v1 with nubia vs basically any civ and you are at a disadvantage.
i played spain the other night and i barely noticed any difference at all, they handled the game great.

and i didn't put the civs in ranking order just in stature

TGE

[This message has been edited by TheGoodEvil (edited 05-07-2004 @ 08:56 AM).]

If the game you are refering to is the 'Tower Rush' game then you didnt have to compete with an Iroqouis or American or any of the other 'scouting' Civs for Ruins. Your partner was also not really scouting for Ruins as much as he was trying the forward towering and was diverting his scout/villagers there. That means you were able to get quite a few more Ruins than vs other good scouting Civs (which makes Spain seem still as fast). Pre-Xpack, there werent really any other Civs that could match Spain's scouting ability (especially with the improved LOS)....Now, there are a handful of popular ones that will be taking the same ruins and once they are gone, Spain is dead in the water as far as bonuses are concerned.

The problem with Spain is similar to what you posted in your list for the Aztecs....there is at least one other Civ that is simply better at the same things. Why be Spain when you can be Iroquois? Now I agree for the intended Tower Rush thing, Spain was a must, but for 'normal' play, I dont see the benefit...at all.

IMO, that means that either Spain is underpowered OR Iroquios is over the top. The same kind of applies to Aztec/Rome although at least the Aztecs have a true bonus over the Romans that stays (and ramps up) all game long. The Spanish have no such advantage over the Iroquois (who have several bonuses that apply all game long).

I do think that the Americans are overpowered, they have soo many bonuses it is just uber.

Lets list them:
Free sci1- the most expensive of the first techs and the one that EVERYONE researches first, this leaves the americans with 120 extra wood, perfect for rushing or getting a good classical time.

Free scholar/university- small bonus, helps give america a little flavor, lets not forget the last few scholars cost more than 100 gold each.

Insta wonder- one of the most versatile bonuses in the game, insta build the red fort in the middle of a battle to win that battle instantly, Terra cotta etc.

Unit upgrades 25% cheaper- this is HUGE. Think how expensive the arquebusier upgrades are and you will see what I mean. Over the course of a game this will probably save the Americans about 50% as much as the Greek research bonus, plus it helps them to amass a huge army.

+3 non knowledge resources for ungarrisoned non scout rax units: very significant, I like this bonus because it can be countered effectively. When garrisoned, american units don't bring in resources, making americans weaker on the defense. Good bonus, not too overpowered.

Free governments- with the cost of the first gov being low this isn't too significant early, but as the game goes on this is a huge bonus.

Airplanes 20% cheaper- one of the most significant late game bonuses, with socialism american planes are practically free.

2 free bombers- not too overpowered, gives america some flavor.

IMO the cheaper unit upgrades need to go OR governments should not be free, maybe 50% cheaper. America is not an automatic win now, but they are just too strong at aging and going on the offense. They need to have 1 or 2 bonuses removed/nerfed.

TGE I think you underrate Russia and Britain. With Russia's plunder bonuses they are now completely impossible to rush, with governments it is easier to turn their defensive bonuses into economic power. The British archer line is now one of the best UUs in the game- plus they get free upgrades and can be spammed from barraxes. British com bonus combined with republic means they can age very fast because they can be 1-2 comm techs behind at all times.

Rating inca bottom tier is harsh, I think they are a top tier civ myself. Go republic early, boom until GP, and spam cav with monarchy in GP. No other nation except america can boom so fast from ages 3-6, the unit refunds are awesome. Inca are vulnerable in ancient but I still think they are just fine, nowhere near as vulnerable as Lakota.

Lakota desperatly need a buff, playing them in competitive 1v1s is impossible, and in team games you will lag behind.

Greece is also a bottom tier civ, especially on land maps. The gold required to make scholars and utilize their HC for raiding is simply not possible, I would like to see a stronger start for Greeks (perhaps 3-4 scholars for free) and a stronger end game (future tech discount would be nice too). Remember that hanging gardens gives players more options for catching up with someone who is booming ahead of them- and despotism makes attacking a booming player easier too. The free scholars would help because Greece could still get enough knowledge without spending so much gold and losing early ruins to gold.

I would like to see a small buff for maya and spain, Mongols are IMO stronger because of Monarchy, don't forget their HAs work well against elephants too.

As far as the nubians- they are actually a very powerful civ with despotism. It is easy to trade resources to build the perfect army composition, rather than using whatever resources you currently have for an army. Their gold income is comparable to persia with cheaper markets. Also with republic they can get to +150 and still trade at the market, making them good at 150 attacks. Until the bonus resources their merchants get in allied territory is removed, they are a top tier civ in 3v3s and 4v4s and are still a good mid tier civ in 1v1.

Also I think you overrated Iroqouis. Their start is good, but as the game goes on they have no significant econ bonuses. Sorta like spain except their start isn't as good as Spain's was, they are still weak as the game goes on.

[This message has been edited by HenWen (edited 05-08-2004 @ 00:52 AM).]

top tier civs as of now (IMO)
China
Iroquois
Rome
America
Russia
Japan
Germany
Dutch

mid tier civs (IMO)
Bantu
French
Persia
Korea
Britian
Nubian
Turk
Inca (in ancient they are nothing more than targets, get past that and they don't have many aplicable strats to make them top tier)
India

low tier civs (IMO)
Greek
Aztec
Maya
Mongol
Egypt
Lakota
Spain

Subject to extreme critisism and change.

TGE

[This message has been edited by TheGoodEvil (edited 05-08-2004 @ 12:00 PM).]

I agree that all the nations on your lower tier list need some help. I think for egypt, the only thing that should be done is to make their UU's more effective. The camels should not have the exact same stats as the cavalry they replace..

EDIT: ok, I take that back. It appears that their camels now have bonus damage against cavalry, which I don't recall them having in earlier versions. (someone correct me if i'm wrong) I think they are perfectly fine as they are now, but you must exploit their wonder bonuses, as this is one of their primary advantages.

[This message has been edited by jazzman_1 (edited 05-08-2004 @ 05:25 AM).]

no, i cant agree with you tge. i have to play more to be sure about the balance.

i can only agree on america beeing too strong (just get rid of free science and it should be fine) and greeks beeing to weak. give greeks the free science of america, job done, america fixed, greek fixed.

about lakota, henwen i still wonder why you rate them so low. i know you played them much, but when they survive ancient, why theire bad? theire as fast as other mid tier civs with aging, they have very much wood and they have a good raid...
im doing 4xx classic times with them, imo this is just fine?

thao, that is probably the best suggestion i've heard; that is taking away the sci. from america and giving it to greece. I sure hope BHG is listening..

also, along the lines of free library research, I think Rome should get their free mil. taken away. Aztec needs it, Rome doesn't.

[This message has been edited by jazzman_1 (edited 05-08-2004 @ 06:46 AM).]

well i had lakota on mid tier. problem is with them is if the game lasts til info lakota don't do so well without fish.

in team games lakota can be awesome... unless they are under heavy raiding by 2 people (which is what i recomend), that is a drawback to lakota. they can have soooo many vils that they can't garrison them all

in 1v1 lakota are a great civ but against japan, germany, china, and all the other top tier nations and most mid tier they stand little chance unless there is a large gap in skill level.

Richter if you would like to help me organize some trials with some other good players i'd be really really thankful.

Thanks
TGE

I can't believe Aztec is on the low tier to you, TGE.
The Aztecs got free mil1. Free mil1. That means they can start building a barracks almost instantly and a free LI pops out once done. Makes it so easy to barracks raid or just plain ol' explore ruins with barracks troops. You can get the senator for raid defense and that +50 econ will save you from researching com3(260k) so you can make GP faster and do the rax spamming. Despot patriot is bugged for the aztecs(plunder for units is despot bonus, not aztec nation bonus) but if that is fixed, despot+aztec can net you some insane resources from killing.

Aztecs are at least mid-tier now.

Why do you consider mongols low-tier? They used to be mid to high tier in classic RoN.

British+Despotism can create a mean super econ+great military(with mass cheap free-upgrading UU archers and lc/hc)

How is despot bugged for aztecs? I just did a test with the despot patriot and it worked with the aztec bonuses perfectly. It increased plunder from buildings 200% within the despot radius,(100% for despot, 100% for aztecs) and it yielded 50% extra resources in classical for killing a unit within its radius.(45 instead of 30)
That's fine by me. Aztecs early raiding can yield some insane resources now. I agree they should be middle tier, as I also don't think they need any additional help. Not to mention, their late age infantry rock.

[This message has been edited by jazzman_1 (edited 05-09-2004 @ 08:10 AM).]