Babylon... Just fine or a bit overpowered?

[lewosch]

What do you think about Babylon of Civ V, in general?

I think it has a decent archer replacement for the start of game. It's useful for clearing early barbarian encampments and defending against early aggressors like Montezuma or Attila. The cheaper but stronger wall replacement also grants them a defensive boost at the start of game. They can defend themselves effectively with the synergy of their uniques. The free great scientist they acquire after researching Writing gives their science output a boost, if used as academy. However, 50% increase in Great Scientist's spawn rate is a bit powerful, in my opinion. Science is very important for the entire flow of game and it can directly affect all victory conditions not just technological victory.

I am not even sure about great people in this game, especially great scientists' academy tile yield looks too much for me. +8 science first, it becomes +10 after researching Scientific Theory and +12 after researching Atomic Theory. Perhaps, Babylon's unique ability is just fine but it seems to be a bit more powerful than intended due to the great scientists' academy yield. Science is almost everything in this game and I've heard people claiming Korea is a bit overpowered, for the same reason.

I may be wrong, of course. I may be missing some critical point or anything. At the moment, I still think there are some unbalanced civilizations which can be tweaked further with patches, like Poland and Byzantium. I'd like to read your opinions about Babylon...

[Jimmy McGill]

Babylon isn't really OP; it's just Science being too powerful.

[Vagrant]

Babylon has a good science advantage at the start, but their starting bias more often than not puts them near bad neibhours, trapped in between city states.

I just finished one game where I was Babylon and Persia was my direct neibhour. What do you think happened?

[lewosch]

Originally posted by Vagrant:

I just finished one game where I was Babylon and Persia was my direct neibhour. What do you think happened?

Were you conquered by Darius? :p

[Vagrant]

Originally posted by lewosch:

Were you conquered by Darius? :p

No, but he razed one of my towns, then I razed one of his. Then with time, France finished him off.

[frapp3_lake_]

Good science is OP, and since Babylon is awesome because its science output is good, Babylon is OP.

[lewosch]

Originally posted by Starwing1:

Good science is OP, and since Babylon is awesome because its science output is good, Babylon is OP.

Yes, science related civilizations and even social policies (rationalism) really make difference which can break the gameplay balance.

France has direct boost to its tourism, but it's also required for them to work hard for it. They need to build wonders with great work slots before anyone else. In other words, they need to do some wonder sniping and rush the required technologies. World wonders' prerequisite technologies and archaeology in late game, for museum bonus.

Aztecs earn culture points with every unit kill and even with a warlike leader like Montezuma, I think they're balanced considering their unique unit and building. Similar to France, they also need to be hard-working to deserve and utilize their unique ability. Taking some risky decisions and usually being at war.

Take Assyria for another example, who were Babylon's neighbour in real history. They can get free technologies and utilize their ability. But they also should take some risk in exchange for that. They need to consider their diplomatic status with neighnours (warmonger penalty). They should attack a civilization which is technologically advanced or about the same, because they get the free tech, only if the conquered city owner has anything the Assyria doesn't know.

Babylon (and a little bit Korea, too) can just sit lazily and enjoy their great scientists spam supported by rationalism social policies. They don't need to take any diplomatic risks (unlike Assyria or Aztecs), they rarely experience the hard effort to rush any technology for certain world wonders (unlike France). With such advantages in science output, they can perform better than other civilizations, in all victory conditions. For instance, they can build world wonders which boost culture/tourism or even Forbidden Palace for additional World Congress votes, without problem. Not to mention, the other civs have a very hard time to beat Babylon's more modern units, making domination victory possibility converge zero, even when they possess unique units...

[Random Reference #98]

I think Babylon has the one balance they really need, they are boring as ♥♥♥♥ to play as.
B-Line writing + ? = Profit
Where's the fun in that?

[lewosch]

Originally posted by Random Reference #98:

I think Babylon has the one balance they really need, they are boring as ♥♥♥♥ to play as.
B-Line writing + ? = Profit
Where's the fun in that?

Exactly! Their uniques promote a defensive play with plenty of science output. Generally boring single-player games and most of the time unrivalled when used by even a modest skilled human in multiplayer.

For example, Ethiopia also has an awesome monument replacement which grants them an early religion. Their gameplay style is also defensive and usually boring, similar to Babylon. But excess amount of faith and great prophet spam isn't something balance-breaking, unlike excess amount of science and great scientist spam.

[frapp3_lake_]

I certainly do agree that while Babylon and Korea are the best for any type of victory, the game can end up quite boring unless going for a domination win.

That is, until one of your scientifically illiterate neighbors decide that attacking you would be a smart decision (like Greece did to me one game with Korea), only to have their pikemen and trebuchets mauled by GW infantry.

[lewosch]

Originally posted by Starwing1:

I certainly do agree that while Babylon and Korea are the best for any type of victory, the game can end up quite boring unless going for a domination win.

That is, until one of your scientifically illiterate neighbors decide that attacking you would be a smart decision (like Greece did to me one game with Korea), only to have their pikemen and trebuchets mauled by GW infantry.

Alexander has one of the highest boldness trait among the AI leaders (like Napoleon, Shaka, Attila, Suleiman, Genghis and maybe a couple other), meaning he can declare war on somebody who is considerably stronger than Greece in terms of military power. Still, it's surprising that he declared war, even though there was such a big technology level gap.

[beanie]

babylon is incredibly borin to play yet you wreck havoc on atilas puny musket men with bazookas tanks and xcom squads :P

[Lightshader]

if u play PVE, babylon is kinda good; if u play PVP, u will find the Babylon wall is useless when against Attila

[Jimmy McGill]

Originally posted by Lightshader:

if u play PVE, babylon is kinda good; if u play PVP, u will find the Babylon wall is useless when against Attila

Babylon still has a big advatage against attila. Their walls are, even if you claim otherwise, quite helpful should Attilan actually break through your defenses and RAM your city directly while the Bowmen help killing the Rams and Horse Archers faster.

[Dilkington]

Babylon and Korea are baby mode civs for the same reason, whoever is ahead in tech will undoubtedly be the strongest and most productive civ in the game because they will be able to get good wonders and powerful units before everyone else

I would even call them overpowered unless an aggressive civ spawns real close to them

[beanie]

Originally posted by Lightshader:

if u play PVE, babylon is kinda good; if u play PVP, u will find the Babylon wall is useless when against Attila

the reason i said atila is cause in the game i was babylon atila was in it right beside me and early on decleared war on me and quickly offered me a peace treaty cause i nearly took one of his cities. in the end i attacked him cause my ally asked me to and he only had musket men while i had infantry and xcom squads at the end