Hey Guys, I love the new cards, they add a lot of interesting flavour to the game, however, I don't like some of them and here are my complaints regarding cost and functionality:

Naval Warfare: I don't understand the argument of having ship to ship combat would change the game mechanics, isn't that was the expansion project is about? The card does not make sense, currently there is no way to eliminite opposing ships without having a land battle, and there should be.

Mining: Cost is too high! I liked the card the old way, with previous costs, it made more sense that it would enhance your mineable commodities than allowing you to buy them. Cartography is only 160 and it allows you to buy 7th level cards.

Music/Drama & Poetry: The old cost at 60 was good, it was a useful card that most people could afford, now it is too costly. Why not make them 70 as a compromise? Nothing costs 70 presently (not sure why).

Monarchy: Too cheap. Increasing your taxation is very powerful, especially with so many cards allowing you to buy commodities. I think it should be 90 at least.

Coinage: Also too cheap, why the decrease? I liked it at the old price.

Roadbuilding: Too expensive. Who would buy such an expensive card that has such nasty calamity aggravations?

Advanced Military: I have already posted my suggestions for this one, it makes more sense for you to increase the amount of units the opposing player loses.

Anyway, that's all for now, keep up all the good work with the game, you guys are amazing, please appreciate a little constructive criticism.

Here are my thoughts:

Navel Warfare: The only reason people would want to eliminate ships is to stop invasions. It is not the nature of this expansion to require players to interact with other players moves. In other words, during the movement phase, a player need only worry about his own moves. In the past we have attempted to use ships to "blockade" other ships but it got more complex (do you let other friendly ships through?) and people never bought it because they never felt it worth it.

Right now it is an abstract representation showing that effective use of how navel power directly effects the consequences on land. You can basically by offensive tokens for 2 treasury that are useable only on coastal areas.

Mining: We are looking at the cost actually, I agree that I might not be satisfied with it. However the "virtual card" mechanic has been removed and exchanged for something that will let you use treasury. There are no plans to change this.

Music/Drama: this was raised because a low level sculpture was inserted. However lowing them down to 70 is something we will consider.

Monarchy: It is a wash for calamities, and I'm not sure people consider a few extra treasury tokens really worth the cost when many of the other cheaper cards are very helpful. We may just disagree on the emphasis on treasury.

Coinage: This was lowered because now having it aggravates the effects of the new calamity Corruption. We will consider raising it in the future however.

Roadbuilding: It was raised in price because some of the negative calamity effects were removed. It is not as damageing anymore (calamity wise) and it is one of the cheaper 200+ cards (needed to enter the last age).

Advanced Military: As I indicated in your last post we want to see if this is imbalanced or not. Anyone reading this, please feel free to post how it is used in a game in which it was purchased. At this point, we are only interested in hearing actual game situations in which it was used. We feel fairly confident that it is not overpowered, however multiple reports of it actually being abused might change our minds.

Thanks for all your input!

I guess we've had a similar post on this. You don't need to change anything in terms of "letting other ships through". It is assumed that in a big body of water you can pass through territories and not meet each other, naval combat only happens at the end of the turn. It is a very simple change, you just resolve ship combat before you do land combat, if you have NW and other player doesn't, he loses a ship, if he still has ships left, then you lose your ship (works like metalworking) until there are no more ships, then your units land and you do land conflict. In our game we have a house rule about needing to reach a nation to trade with them, so this would create interesting situations where you can move a ship into a territory where an opponent has a ship and eliminate it. This effects their trade for the turn. Similarily, you can put ships around your cities to protect them. The only caveat is that it should be optional unless both sides have the card, i.e., their boats can't attack you but you attack them, they can defend themselves.



I guess if you think about it logically, why would mining mean that you would have to buy these minerals? It just seems to make more sense that it aids in accumulating these metals.



If you consider they used to be 45 in the old game, they've almost doubled. It used to be a low level card that you would only buy for the civil war. However, the more I think about it, more cards means more credits, and therefore cards that seem expensive aren't once you get a few cards.



A wash with calamities? It actually helps one calamity, reduces barbarian hordes/sea peoples, it only aggravates Tyranny. In the old game treasury was not that important but in this game you can buy half the cards, and use treasury for all sorts of other reasons, it becomes VERY import, imho.



Going from 120 to 90 is a big jump, if you combine it with Monarchy, all of a sudden you are taxing 4 per city, that's pretty huge. I would leave it at 120 and still keep the calamity aggravation.



Okay, well in the version I'm running (Hellenization) it sill has the calamity aggravations, which I think makes sense, you should be lowered to 180, you still have 2 200 level cards.



Well, we will be running a face to face game on February 4th and test the new cards, we'll try and get AM if we go that long. Even regardless of the balance part, if you think historically, nations with AM would defeat less advanced forces with far fewer troops, so if you are attacked by barbarians in some island or something with no surrounding troops, you have no advantage. This makes no sense, you should be able to wipe the barbarians out pretty easily.



No problem, I have more!

This is my first post. The game is STUNNING! I can't wait to play. Here is (minor) criticism to help keep the game remain the flavor of the game we all came to love:

Re: Naval Warfare. I would do away with that card entirely. I realize the desire to eliminate the threat of invasion, but the idea of destroying ships just doesn't make sense. Turns in Civ are far to long and abstract to deal with the detail of destroying ships. Token represent 7000 people (not soldiers). This card steers it more towards the wargame genre. When ships bring people into a new land to settle, it represents hundreds of years of migration and colonization, not a simple D-Day invasion. The ability to flood people into a new area and saturate it with tokens is one of the most unique aspects of that game and it should remain a constant threat. It's what makes Civ Civ. Hope that makes sense.

Look for more post, suggestions etc...

Matt

Here's a Civ card that seems obvious (to me), but hasn't seemed to have turned up:

The WHEEL

Invented around 4000 BC near iran. It would of course be a pre-req to some obvious cards.

-matt

Well, there are already many war game rules added (military, advanced military) so this just seems logical to me. Regardless of how the timeline is setup, if you follow a war strategy, the end result in GAME terms is that it IS a D-Day style invasion. Sure it takes place over thousands or hundreds of years in an abstract sense, but they did have naval warfare back then, so why not represent it somehow in the game?