There is a consensus, even among AIs, that Harappans are OP. Why and how to nerf them?

They get universal bonuses: canal on any tile and food on any food producing tile. This is always good, anywhere. No brainer.

So, make it more situational, linked to their affinity for rivers :

- Canal Network has to be built near a river ;

- Fertile Inundations gives +2 Food on river only.

What do you think? Other suggestions?

I can't account for multiplayer but in singleplayer they are not really OP. I play and win on humankind difficulty and I can achieve the same with other early cultures. The only real reason for me to pick Harappans is to deny them for the AI for a couple of reasons:

a) Early game against humankind AI is skirmishes and blocking territories. Humankind difficulty gets a large combat bonus, and on top of that they would get the buffed Scout which is dangerous. After early battles I'm at peace for the rest of game with every AI so it doesn't matter which later ultimate unit they get

b) While as a human player you barely have the influence to ever use their culture trait (because so many more important stuff like claiming territories, found cities and claim a wonder), the AI use it frequently and it is really strong in AI hands

So hands down, while the Harapans are certainly beginner friendly, a basic solid pick and easy to play, they aren't really better then other cultures if you know the game better but in my experience often the best culture in AI hands.

They are overpowered, a bit less than Egyptians because they don't have their Markabat (chariot archer). But +1 universal on food, is universaly good.

A topic on it: https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/169-game-design/threads/43089-the-overpowered-civilizations-of-the-ancient-era?page=1

Harapeans: They are as powerful as the Egyptians. A bonus in food universally, and the whole game, useful. A river bonus is also useful, if you start near a river. A district obviously usefull. 

It's a bit the same problem as the Egyptians. Bonuses useful immediately, useful later, and an equally useful district. 

I agree that some civs need to be more powerful because it pushes you to rush the next eras, but the bonuses of this faction go too far.

Their faster scout unit is always useful, in any game you are sure to have it.

globule wrote:

Why I don't think they are that OP?

- to get Harappans before they others, they will get into classical era as fast as possible. Do the contrary, get as many tribes as possible! Works very well imo. You can convert them instantly to pop when you can feed them later

I agree, in the current state of the game, that staying in neolithic to pile nomads is the strongest strategy, but it is due to a broken design (there are threads about that too). Staying in neolithic shouldn't be stronger than picking the best culture. When I have to pick a culture, Harappans is always a good choice (as Egyptians and Mycenians).

But the thread is not about IF Harappans are OP, but HOW to reduce their power in the right way. 

But the thread is not about IF Harappans are OP, but HOW to reduce their power in the right way.

Which however require us to know why they are OP, what cause them to be OP and how we then change them to not be OP.

That's right. And I agree with all the points of your analysis.

Kamino72 wrote:

There is a consensus, even among AIs, that Harappans are OP. Why and how to nerf them?

They get universal bonuses: canal on any tile and food on any food producing tile. This is always good, anywhere. No brainer.

So, make it more situational, linked to their affinity for rivers :

- Canal Network has to be built near a river ;

- Fertile Inundations gives +2 Food on river only.

What do you think? Other suggestions?

I don't think there is a consensus, You'd need to make an argument specifically about why you feel that way.

Just because some people scream the loudest, doesn't make their opinions right (or wrong). I would agree that Harappans are one of the easiest cultures to play with but there are certainly others who are stronger. Also, as some other cultures too, they are certainly dependent on the region you're starting. Why choose Harappans when the regions is dry or there are no rivers.

If you have a look at the current records in some categories like fastest win on Humankind difficulty dtandard speed, they aren't picked ever. 

The same useless discussion is going on about the turks because people shout that their emblematic district is OP or someone added too many digits for their unique buff. Maybe. And again, it doesn't matter anything when the game design is broken, that should be fixed first and only then afterwards you should think about balancing.

Drullo321 wrote:

If you have a look at the current records in some categories like fastest win on Humankind difficulty dtandard speed, they aren't picked ever. 

Yes I picked Babylonian for my 45k fame game https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/168-general/threads/44567-very-high-fame-scores?page=1#post-334974

I do however think Harappans could need a tweaking which I posted above.

Goodluck wrote:

Drullo321 wrote:

If you have a look at the current records in some categories like fastest win on Humankind difficulty dtandard speed, they aren't picked ever. 

Yes I picked Babylonian for my 45k fame game https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/168-general/threads/44567-very-high-fame-scores?page=1#post-334974

I do however think Harappans could need a tweaking which I posted above.

Yeah but there's a lot of variables involved in gamestart and going forward and the problem is still existent that population is going to beat everything else for a variety of reasons.

They can be bullied easily into submission, you can beat them easily in a war if you go militarist if you outpop them and yes a science faction is going to outdo them in science later, but a lot of these anecdotal experiences are against the AI. Try fighting a Harappan player, because I have many times and just in one game alone (which unfortunately had a corrupted save due to an operation handle error, fix MP pls amplitude) I had a battle where I was Egyptians into Greeks into Aztecs against a player that went Harappans into Celts into English and it was brutal, yeah my aztec warriors and crossbows would kill every 3 of his for 1 of mine but this guy could not shit out armies fast enough to remove his unemployed pops in his cities, we had our 'battle of the bulge' where our lands were separated by a canyon valley through a mountain ridge that went across the whole middle of the cont and battles would last the full 6 turns and the turn after immediately start again for another full 6 turns.

Food is OP, the guy was only slightly behind me in tech too because unlike the AI he knew to build libraries and buildings that increased science slots on his cities to keep up.

hell I talked about it in another thread but I've literally seen AI go harappans and drop their first city in a fking rocky field with zero food and it only works on empire or higher because the AI cheats, but any player would look for a river or prairie.

I can see your point about multiplayer but beside some really early ~10 turn bonus to food, the Harappans food bonus is easily outclassed by just one matching luxury ressource. So without having a look at your specific multiplayer example, i want all the of the "Nerf Harappans" faction thinking outside of their small box. I really already played alot of games, most of them on highest difficulty and had a lot of good and bad starts and different starter cultures. And I noticed that alot of other factors then having a river is more beneficial in the mid to long run. If you have a look at the food and industry luxury ressources, the easily outclasses any of the early culture passive traits. So e.g. if you have culture X and your enemy picked Harappans and you get outmatched, consider many other factors into the overall picture then just "He picked Harappans, he had a river, their bonus is the reason he won". 

hell I talked about it in another thread but I've literally seen AI go harappans and drop their first city in a fking rocky field with zero food and it only works on empire or higher because the AI cheats, but any player would look for a river or prairie.

Confirmation bias. Have a look at the different AI boni (overall difficulty) and different AI persona boni (persona difficulty). Both can lead to such experience more then just picking Harappans. 

Drullo321 wrote:

I can see your point about multiplayer but beside some really early ~10 turn bonus to food, the Harappans food bonus is easily outclassed by just one matching luxury ressource. So without having a look at your specific multiplayer example, i want all the of the "Nerf Harappans" faction thinking outside of their small box. I really already played alot of games, most of them on highest difficulty and had a lot of good and bad starts and different starter cultures. And I noticed that alot of other factors then having a river is more beneficial in the mid to long run. If you have a look at the food and industry luxury ressources, the easily outclasses any of the early culture passive traits. So e.g. if you have culture X and your enemy picked Harappans and you get outmatched, consider many other factors into the overall picture then just "He picked Harappans, he had a river, their bonus is the reason he won". 

hell I talked about it in another thread but I've literally seen AI go harappans and drop their first city in a fking rocky field with zero food and it only works on empire or higher because the AI cheats, but any player would look for a river or prairie.

Confirmation bias. Have a look at the different AI boni (overall difficulty) and different AI persona boni (persona difficulty). Both can lead to such experience more then just picking Harappans. 

Like you I have played many games on the highest difficulty and I still stand my ground on that Harappans(and Mycenaeans) are always going to be the two strongest starts for reasons I have stated in this thread and others. I find it interesting you shrug off that food bonus so easily when it will stick with them for the entire game and help prop-up any of their future cities. The luxury food bonuses do not have the same effect as the Harappans at all and many of them require you to have districts to even start getting their bonus while the harappan food bonus is an instant effect, luxuries are also entirely random and usually spawn in clusters allowing an all or nothing situation where one person can consolidate almost the entire saffron supply in the world before medieval era.

as for the value of the food bonuses themselves the Harappans bonus will eclipse many of the luxuries for many eras.

Salt is a flat +5 food on your cities, I rarely ever see more than 1-2 of it not your outposts, your cities, on its own it is a measly bonus that even a single isolate farmers quarter can beat.
Tea is also a measly 2% bonus to food and like Salt I've rarely seen more than 1-2 of it in a given area, so it is very unnoticeable bonus until patronage where the scaling becomes v. good

Coffee is OKAY but +1 to each farmer pop feels more like a consolation prize and wont really blow up until patronage

Sage and Saffron are objectively the best early game food luxuries to get, Sage being an immediate effect, however its bonus is proportional to your attached territories, while I believe Saffron to be the absolute must-have out of all of the resources in the pre-patronage eras, I dont always get Saffron but when I do its in massive clusters of 5-7 in a single region so you're usually guaranteed a bonus better than the harappans.

I think all the others are made worse by the fact any other faction is constantly juggling food, industry and science in order to keep up while harappans can ignore food early on so you don't really catchup with them unless they get a truly awful start.

we're also ignoring the versatility of religion and Harappans that go shamanism will probably get first pick of tier 1 which I think is usually the most important tenet since it has all the juicy exploitation bonuses. Because even if you go Polytheism your tenet unlock is still based on population, Harappans win out on this too; getting another exploitation bonus that will stay with them into the late game.

Drullo321 wrote:

If you have a look at the current records in some categories like fastest win on Humankind difficulty dtandard speed, they aren't picked ever. 

For the fastest win, I guess the best strategy is to abuse of the neolithic nomad spam, thus picking your culture last when Harappans are never available.

And we can talk about several other unbalanced/broken mechanics that can outplay Harappans strenghs.

But the point is to compare and balance cultures, all other things being equal.

To be fair, it would probably be wise to start by fixing general unbalanced mechanics before reassessing and ajusting culture powers. 

Looms wrote:
How about we buff other cultures instead? 

Because :

- 7 culture to buff vs 3 to nerf would be harder

- Harappans powers are too generic, I want them a bit more contextual (kinked to rivers)

- the pace of the game is far too high, we need to slow down

Kamino72 wrote:

Drullo321 wrote:

If you have a look at the current records in some categories like fastest win on Humankind difficulty dtandard speed, they aren't picked ever. 

For the fastest win, I guess the best strategy is to abuse of the neolithic nomad spam, thus picking your culture last when Harappans are never available.

And we can talk about several other unbalanced/broken mechanics that can outplay Harappans strenghs.

But the point is to compare and balance cultures, all other things being equal.

To be fair, it would probably be wise to start by fixing general unbalanced mechanics before reassessing and ajusting culture powers.

That is what I'm talking about all the time. The game is still new and not all mechanics and game formulas publicy available. There are alot of meta mechanics which should be adressed first. Afterwards there is a high chance the game plays differently, thus cultures feel and play differently and may or not be OP/bad anymore. 

For example, while the turks can easily outclass the swedes in science output, then general scale, especially the science output of both and each other-nonscience orientated contemporary era culture is way too high because of many other multipliers. Which those handled first, the way we look at the balance of cultures may change, same thing may happen with early cultures. 

Cause and effect. The cause should be fixed, not the effects. In this case the effects are that several cultures feel overpowered and other feel underwhelming.

I don't think the Harappans are the most unbalanced civ, to be honest. I think the Mycenean Cyclopean fortress is much more overpowered than anything the harappans do. Their bonuses are heavily dependant on having rivers, and they will give you more food, which in ancient era is important, but not as important as industry. The EQ only gives food which, if compared to the Egyptians' industry + influence, the Nubians industry + money or the Myceneans' industry +  stability is slightly underwhelming. Their emblematic unit is not even that good: you can win a fight against them if you just skip rounds and get the +2 defense bonus (the assyrian raiders are much more useful when bullying enemy scouts and they don't become useless as quickly) and their lack of a more substantial EU later in the era makes the Harappans struggle against a stack of promachoi or sabu sa qasti, not to mention gigirs or zhanche. I don't think the Harappans are OP, they are good at what they do, and the fact that the AI knows how to take advantage of that shouldn't be a reason to nerf them. I think the problem lies more in the Phoenicians, Assyrians and to some extent Olmecs being underwhelming, the Harappans are just a solid pick like many others.

Glad to see everybody don't think them OP, even if we agree they are pretty easy to play and good/very good.

But even if I don't play them, I admit I feel that more than 50% the time, AI take them as a first pick, that is odd. I can understand if people want to play them in solo, they can feel that unfair if they don't choose first. I don't think AI choice should be "random", AI need to need an appropriate culture depending of its plan/territories etc, but the autopick (feeling at least...) of harrapeans, nubians etc is a bit sad :)

I don't know if it is intended or not but the fact that there are some ancient culture obviously better than others can be a way to punish players staying at neolitic exploiting nomads specifics carateristics