As it stands, England is amongst the weaker civs in the game, but several things in G&Ks seem to propel them to never before seen heights.


Ships can now capture coastal cities. This is a huge plus for England, with their faster ships (and better frigate), they can dominate the sea - and now use that for something. No matter how much the AI improves, it is unlikely to be a credible threat at sea, so an English player might be able to hit and run and capture cities with relative ease.

Gatling guns and machine guns. Longbows can upgrade to these, and keep the +1 range promotion. While going from 2 to 3 range is a nice bonus, going from 1 to 2 is a complete game changer. English Gatling and Machine guns will be able to wreck utter havoc. The main weakness these units have (from what we've seen) is the difficulty they have in getting close enough to the enemy to set up and then fire. By tripling the number of tiles they can reach, the English should have an enormous advantage with these.

+1 Spy to UA. As if this wasn't enough, they get a direct improvement. Hard to judge how good this will be, but you really can't complain with an extra spy.

nah, not the new 'best', but better than before definitely.

The extra spy is now a contested feature addition. Some reports indicate that it might have been removed. But still, England is getting a major boost from this expansion.

+1 Spy to UA. As if this wasn't enough, they get a direct improvement. Hard to judge how good this will be, but you really can't complain with an extra spy.


The spy was removed. But England will be much better anyway.
Edit: Somebody was faster...

Even then, hard to be best Civ when you're still reliant on there being large amounts of water on the map, Don't think Lizzy's going to be storming the great plains any time soon :nope:

Even then, hard to be best Civ when you're still reliant on there being large amounts of water on the map, Don't think Lizzy's going to be storming the great plains any time soon :nope:

I disagree, if the machine gun is as good as we think it is (from comparing the few stats we know), and the gatling gun likewise, I really think that England will dominate. Its like having 3UU instead of 1. Longbows, which you should have plenty of anyway as they are great and come late enough that production is good, will give you killer gatlings and MGs

Machine guns can attack with the same power as contemporary melee units, but without taking damage as they are ranged. In defence, they also hold up as well as melee units. In short, MGs will beat just about anything in attrition. They're weakness is they're very short ranged, meaning that they have to be on the front line replacing infantry/tanks which can propel an attack forward faster as they don't have to set up.

English MGs completely change that. You can place them in the second rank, suddenly doubling the firepower of your army (either with two rows of them, or with infantry/tanks in the front row). It also allows you to have an MG set up and then "leap frog" over it with another MG, who is then covered from all sides by the previous one.

In defence,to create a chain of MGs (with ZoC), you need one every 3 tiles. An enemy unit approaching this line can be hit 1-2, for one turn. English MGs can hit them 1-2 for the first turn, and 2-3 times for the second turn.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the longbowman will be much better upgraded than as its basic unit, a bit like the Jaguar Warrior is more valuable as a swordsman.

I dont think that England will be able to maintain the +1 range from longbows to gatling and MG.

I don't disagree with you that England will now be much more competitive, especially with the greater importance of navies. But I'm just arguing that as you say they will "dominate" on a map that nullifies their UA and one of their UUs, on the strength of the other UU then on any other map type with water every other Civ may as pack their bags cause England have it in the bag!
For the sake of balance this can't be true.

I dont think that England will be able to maintain the +1 range from longbows to gatling and MG.

It's currently a promotion. They'd have to change the Longbow to prevent it from staying with the unit after promotion.

I dont think that England will be able to maintain the +1 range from longbows to gatling and MG.

That could be true, but would be silly IMHO.

Certainly, with the improvements to the importance of naval warfare and the potential to upgrade England's unique ground unit into something that makes sense (and can at least retain the promotions won via experience), England will have vastly improved.

I don't disagree with you that England will now be much more competitive, especially with the greater importance of navies. But I'm just arguing that as you say they will "dominate" on a map that nullifies their UA and one of their UUs, on the strength of the other UU then on any other map type with water every other Civ may as pack their bags cause England have it in the bag!
For the sake of balance this can't be true.

I agree with what you're saying, but my entire point is that England might be hugely overpowered. Saying that they can't be overpowered or it wouldn't be balanced isn't an argument for them not being overpowered; it's simply stating that you don't want them to be.

I dont think that England will be able to maintain the +1 range from longbows to gatling and MG.

Perhaps those units should stick to a one hex range even for the English. The thing that would be interesting is the English player to keep balance, should decide whether they want to have an advantage in the early game or the late game. If they choose the +1 range for their longbows, then they should lose the promotion when they upgrade to the gatling gun. If they want a more powerful gatling then they should choose a different promotion for their longbows which will benefit the gatling gun in the late game. This would keep the British from keeping an unfair range advantage in the later game. However, they have the potential for upgrading to better MGs. Besides the Gatling is not a supposed to be a two hex ranged weapon, if they are going to do the range thing add a trench mortar team and have the longbow upgrade to that. Then later the trench mortar can upgrade to mortar. Damn English and their ranged weapons!

I belive there isnt a civ wich would be able to hold on to its UU's unique ability after it has been upgraded to something else, and I dont think that England is going to be an exception in this matter.

That said I think they should propably change the longbows ability.

Why? Because England obviously cannot promote the +1 extra range to its longbow unit because it allready has that promotion. England also cannot maintain its UU's unique ability after upgrading because neither cant anyone else, so that wouldnt be fair. If this is the case, then all the other civs actually can upgrade their crosbowman (longbowman) to get the +1 extra range and still maintain that promotion after the upgrade, but England would not be able to do that.

Or they might just remove the extra range promotion from all the units after upgrading to gatling/MG. Anyway, I still belive that England cannot maintain its UU's unique ability after upgrading, because neither cant anyone else.

I belive there isnt a civ wich would be able to hold on to its UU's unique ability after it has been upgraded to something else, and I dont think that England is going to be an exception in this matter.

That said I think they should propably change the longbows ability.

Why? Because England obviously cannot promote the +1 extra range to its longbow unit because it allready has that promotion. England also cannot maintain its UU's unique ability after upgrading because neither cant anyone else, so that wouldnt be fair. If this is the case, then all the other civs actually can upgrade their crosbowman (longbowman) to get the +1 extra range and still maintain that promotion after the upgrade, but England would not be able to do that.

Or they might just remove the extra range promotion from all the units after upgrading to gatling/MG. Anyway, I still belive that England cannot maintain its UU's unique ability after upgrading, because neither cant anyone else.

Yep, this makes sense I agree. Why give the English such an unfair advantage in more than one era, that makes no sense anyway. The longbow should have its day and then go by the wayside, just like any other UU.

Even with an extra spy they still would not be as overpowered as babylon for example

I belive there isnt a civ wich would be able to hold on to its UU's unique ability after it has been upgraded to something else, and I dont think that England is going to be an exception in this matter.

America, Aztecs, Polynesia, Persia, Ottomans, should I go on?

America, Aztecs, Polynesia, Persia, Ottomans, should I go on?

So you feel that a gatling gun should have the same range as artillery???

America, Aztecs, Polynesia, Persia, Ottomans, should I go on?

Really!? So those civs can actually benefit from their UU's unique ability basicly trough out the game but some others cannot? Oh man thats just horrible design.

Oh well, if they arent interested about such a "small" detail then maybe England just should have gatlings and MG's with +1 extra range :lol:.

Really!? So those civs can actually benefit from their UU's unique ability basicly trough out the game but others cannot? Oh man thats just horrible design.

Oh well, if they arent interested about those things then maybe England just should have gatlings and MG's with +1 extra range :lol:.

Actually most civs UU's do. the only exceptions I can think of are the mounted archer units.

So you feel that a gatling gun should have the same range as artillery???

For starters, it won't have the same range, it'll have a range of two. I'm also not commenting on what it should be, just that, unless they change the Longbowmen, its ability of +1 range will continue with future units.

For those who want to know. Any unit with a promotion gets to keep it. Things where it's just a stronger unit (example, Hoplite) don't get to keep it. But benefits transfer.

For starters, it won't have the same range, it'll have a range of two. I'm also not commenting on what it should be, just that, unless they change the Longbowmen, its ability of +1 range will continue with future units.

For those who want to know. Any unit with a promotion gets to keep it. Things where it's just a stronger unit (example, Hoplite) don't get to keep it. But benefits transfer.

Well then I am playing as England.:lol:

Actually most civs UU's do. the only exceptions I can think of are the mounted archer units.

Well I belive it pretty much depends on the UU's special ability. At least Englands, Romes or Frances UU's abilities doesnt stay after the upgrade.

I obviously dont know what they are going to do with the longbow to MG upgrade, but I am going to say that it is going to be ridiculous if England is getting MG's with longer range. Dont get me wrong since I like playing as England, but thats just maybe why I would hate to have such an loophole of longer range gatlings and MG's in my arsenal.

Re: France. The Musketeer doesn't transfer (it's just a stat boost), but the Foreign Legion ability does.

Re: France. The Musketeer doesn't transfer (it's just a stat boost), but the Foreign Legion ability does.

Oh ok. I have played with France but ive must of stopped the game before upgrading my Foreign Legion to Mech.Inf to actually realize that detail.

Re: France. The Musketeer doesn't transfer (it's just a stat boost), but the Foreign Legion ability does.

Exactly, stat changes don't transfer but promotions do. Is the longbows +1 range a stat change or a promotion?

Well I belive it pretty much depends on the UU's special ability. At least Englands, Romes or Frances UU's abilities doesnt stay after the upgrade.

I obviously dont know what they are going to do with the longbow to MG upgrade, but I am going to say that it is going to be ridiculous if England is getting MG's with longer range. Dont get me wrong since I like playing as England, but thats just maybe why I would hate to have such an loophole of longer range gatlings and MG's in my arsenal.

If the UU's uniqueness comes from a promotion, it does stay with the upgraded units. England's +1 range promotion for the Longbowman does stay around on the Rifleman. You just don't notice because it does nothing for the Rifleman.

If the uniqueness is not from a promotion. If it is just hardcoded into the unit, it doesn't carry over. Any unit with a strength enhancement, such as the Musketeer, doesn't carry over, because it is hardcoded rather than a promotion.

Exactly, stat changes don't transfer but promotions do. Is the longbows +1 range a stat change or a promotion?

It's currently a promotion.

If the UU's uniqueness comes from a promotion, it does stay with the upgraded units. England's +1 range promotion for the Longbowman does stay around on the Rifleman. You just don't notice because it does nothing for the Rifleman.

If the uniqueness is not from a promotion. If it is just hardcoded into the unit, it doesn't carry over. Any unit with a strength enhancement, such as the Musketeer, doesn't carry over, because it is hardcoded rather than a promotion.

Yes I do realize this, I just did not remember the Foreign Legion when I listed those civs.

Btw, werent we suppose to get something between crossbowman (longbowman) and gatling? Wasnt it called composite bowman (or something like that)? If promotions stay effective, then England would be getting +1 range for quite a bunch of units after longbowman.. Would that be a good idea? I really dont think it is..

Yes I do realize this, I just did not remember the Foreign Legion when I listed those civs.

Btw, werent we suppose to get something between crossbowman (longbowman) and gatling? Wasnt it called composite bowman (or something like that)? If promotions stay effective, then England would be getting +1 range for quite a bunch of units after longbowman.. Would that be a good idea? I really dont think it is..

archer-> composite bowman -> crossbowman (Longbowman) -> Gatling Gun -> machine Gun

the Composite bowman goes between archer and crossbowman, not after.

Yes I do realize this, I just did not remember the Foreign Legion when I listed those civs.

Btw, werent we suppose to get something between crossbowman (longbowman) and gatling? Wasnt it called composite bowman (or something like that)? If promotions stay effective, then England would be getting +1 range for quite a bunch of units after longbowman.. Would that be a good idea? I really dont think it is..

From the video it looks like compound bow is in between archer and crossbow.

One of the things that I get an inordinate joy out of is when my first wimpy Scout stumbles upon an Ancient Ruin full of bows and becomes an Archer. Imagine the fun that could be had if you could keep that unit (with its all-terrain promotion) alive, get the Longbowman +1 to range, and the defensive strength of the machine gun. I will call him Rambo.

Still I think its a giant loophole and it should not exist. Infact I think that it has been that way for all this time for all those civs that have had kept their UU's unique ability after upgrade. The only difference is that in Englands case this loophole is actually gigantic.

BTW, no one has mentioned China, which strikes me as just as significant.

If you don't want England to have upgraded longbowman, build a few knights and take 'em all out. :)

BTW, no one has mentioned China, which strikes me as just as significant.

Yes, it might even be a bigger deal, because the Cho-ku-no (or whatever it is called) has a weakened strength to mitigate its double attack, but the GG and MG won't.

If you don't want England to have upgraded longbowman, build a few knights and take 'em all out. :)

Thanks for the tip, but unfortunately I actually DO like to play as England :). I just dont want to have the possibility to have superunits.

BTW, no one has mentioned China, which strikes me as just as significant.

Oh god. Lets just hope that the developers do actually realize these problems.

The AI is allready struggling in combat, It does not help the situation if the player has possibility to have army of über units!

The problem with special unique units like the longbow is that the game is trying to translate a historical tactical superiority into an operational or even strategic one. It does not work except in a narrowly defined way, for a specific era.
English superiority with the longbow in the Middle Ages did not automatically equate to a military superiority in the industrial age. What did carry over was the focus upon a small, highly trained and well-drilled professional military force that could be used for intervention.
What we should be focusing upon carrying over is experience and abilities, but not necessarily the flavor of the older units. So the longbow's range advantage should and does go away because it was unique to that era. In later eras, the British had excellent rifles like the Enfield, but they were still not exceptionally better than the enemy's rifles: the British infantry was better trained in how to use them, however.

Where are all these rumours of England's extra spy being taken away coming from? I haven't seen any sources that mention this. Does anyone have a link to where this has been stated?

As for the Longbow -> Machine Gun promotion line goes, don't other UUs carry over their abilities? Jaguars carry over their healing promotion through all upgrades. I say if England loses their UU's bonus upon upgrading to their next tier, then all UUs should, otherwise that's yet another reason not to play England.

Maybe to counter balance this the Machine Gun has a negative promotion of not being able to fire over friendly units. So you keep the bonus of extra range but blanket enemy territory in them

SalemSage is right, if Longbowman can't keep their promotion, no unit should. The promotions for the Jaguar and Polynesian Maori Warrior last the whole game up through Mechanized Infantry. The Danish UU's are on the same upgrade path so Their Infantry get Amphibious AND faster Hill/Tundra Movement.

this is all much ado about nothing.

Longbows are only special because you start with Range, letting you get to Logistics and Indirect fire faster (by 1 level 4 promotion, specifically).

In vanilla, they sucked for upgrades, so no one did it. Now they upgrade properly, but won't keep the 3 range, it'll just be 2 range. Oh noes... it's not like anyone else can't take that promotion... or build horse units or tanks...

... or fighters/bombers.

The promotions for the Jaguar and Polynesian Maori Warrior last the whole game up through Mechanized Infantry.

Am I the only one who finds the idea of Mechanized Infantry with a war dance hilarious?

really this is silly since any civ can build ranged units, and any ranged unit can have the +1 range promotion. cho ku's could get the +1 range promotion quite quickly and the long bowmen could get logistics quite quickly... you could have a handful of archers from any civ with these promotions because the promotions are not "unique". I've had archers with both logistics and the +1 ranged promotion. I've also had a few of these archers with scouting promotions as well. Imagine it with scouting II (+1 movement) while playing America, meaning u would have +2 sight. I've scratched my head about the mobility promotion, which is listed as ranged but only seems available to naval units... imagine a ranged unit that had 4 movement, could shoot multiple times, and had no penalty due to terrain.

So no, England is not OP :)

Each unit that has a special ability comes with that ability in the form of a promotion. If that promotion doesn't already exist, such as the Longbow's extra range or the Samurai's Shock I, then the promotion symbol is that of an upward pointing triangle. One of the reasons I love the Ottomans is that their upgraded Janissaries keep both of their bonuses (as two separate promotions) upon upgrade, which is hilarious.

Of course, pure statistical increases to Unit Strength or movement are not coded as promotions, so that units such as the aforementioned Musketeer do not become stronger as Riflemen. Interestingly, the Roman Legion is an oddity to this rule - their ability to build roads and forts is part of being a Legion, and not an upgrade they keep. I'm not sure about Mandekalu Cavalry, but I think that their +10% (or is it -10%?) replaces the usual horse downgrade, as well as replacing the subsequent Cavalry downgrade.

For those advocating taking away the Longbow's range promotion for Gatling and Machine Guns, two big questions:
1) How is this fair when all other civilizations with powers get to keep their bonuses post-upgrade?
2) If you believe that all units should lose their upgrades on promotion, how does this interact with the Samurai, who gain Shock I as a bonus upgrade?

I'm happy for the English and Chinese to keep their range on later era units. It's part of playing those Civs that they have that power.

I'm still wondering about where the rumours of England losing their extra spy are coming from. Where did it originate?

What if they change lbow's ability so that it doesn't become too OP when upgraded. :hmm:

What if they change lbow's ability so that it doesn't become too OP when upgraded. :hmm:
How? Change it to +0.5 range :lol:? or turn it to something completely different?

Again why should they start with longbows and we don't even know yet how combat will work. We are assuming still a lot how powerful Machine Guns/Gattling Guns will be relative to other units... and its too early to assume.

Besides no one is calling for a nerf to Mechanized Infantry who full heal with every kill (Janissary Upgrade), no one is calling for a nerf to Cho Ko Nuhs who will get 2 attacks without the combat strength penalty they had when they upgrade, No one is complaining about cross upgrades in team games in multi (I.E. Jaguar upgrading to a Legion), etc.

Any unit with a promotion gets to keep it. Things where it's just a stronger unit (example, Hoplite) don't get to keep it. But benefits transfer.

I just want to point out on this vein of the conversation that there Has been a change to this in the past.

Trebuchets extra City attack promotion used to carry on to cannon->arty->rocket arty and that was patched out.

So it is certainly possible that the range may not carry over, however I'm not optimistic that it would be noticed in testing even if they didnt intend it to carry over it may still slip in lol.

edit: In checking the pedia it appears that for the Treb they simply changed it from a promotion to a Unit attribute where as the longbows range is still the normal ranged promo. It seems to me they would then be forced to strip the ranged promo from all composite bows upon upgrade to gattlings or else anyone can get range 2 gats/MG, english just get it easier.

If you made the longbows range a unit attribute instead of the promo then you'd have to make sure it didnt stack with the regular ranged promo.

I dunno, anything is possible.. seems most likely to me at this point they will leave it as it is and allow 2ranged gats/mg for anyone that levels up their archers/xbws/compbows Or strip ranged promo upon upgrade to gats

I'm also curious about where people have heard that England is losing it's extra spy. That would be a shame.

There's also something else to consider: There might be an upgrade after Machine Gun into something else.

But as MadDjinn mentions, its not that big of an ordeal. Anyone can pick up the Range promotion regardless of civilization. English only get it for free with their UU.

I'm also curious about where people have heard that England is losing it's extra spy. That would be a shame.

This. Any source on this claim? I haven't heard anything about them losing their extra spy.

This. Any source on this claim? I haven't heard anything about them losing their extra spy.

It was mentioned in one of the more recent previews, I think.

I don't think it is necessarily confirmed at this point; it didn't even mention England by name, although that is the logical assumption, since they had been known to have it previously.

It's currently a promotion. They'd have to change the Longbow to prevent it from staying with the unit after promotion.

Yes, and this is what they will do HIMO.

Interesting about the Spy, would suggest that Firaxis agreed England was getting too good.

I'm not sure why people are suddenly saying that the longbow should lose its range on upgrade, that does seem a little unfair. It will simply make England very powerful. As has been pointed out, it is hard to know exactly how good this will be until we can play around with it.

I'm surprised nobody is talking about their advantage in Naval warfare. Even in Pangea, there are always a good number of coastal cities. Unless you have a huge naval defence, there seems to be little you can do to stop England quickly flanking you can capturing (or damaging for a land assault) coastal cities. Also, as all units can defend while embark, the English tactic of moving land units by sea in order to triple/quadruple their movement becomes even more feasible.

For those advocating taking away the Longbow's range promotion for Gatling and Machine Guns, two big questions:
1) How is this fair when all other civilizations with powers get to keep their bonuses post-upgrade?

Nobody should be able to carry their UU’s ability trough upgrading trough out the game. After all, it is supposed to be a unique unit.


2) If you believe that all units should lose their upgrades on promotion, how does this interact with the Samurai, who gain Shock I as a bonus upgrade?

If loosing the unique ability trough upgrading causes problems with one particular unit, then just change that units ability to suit this system better.

I mostly play my games with either England, Spain or Rome and none of those civs get to carry their UU’s ability through upgrading (at least I have not noticed any), so that’s why I basicly had no idea that some other civs has this kind of powerful loophole to use. Anyway, how is it a “unique unit” if all the other units that upgrade from that particular unit gets to keep that same god dam ability? That’s a stupid loophole in design right there and it shouldnt never even existed.

I mostly play my games with either England, Spain or Rome and none of those civs get to carry their UU’s ability through upgrading (at least I have not noticed any), so that’s why I basicly had no idea that some other civs has this kind of powerful loophole to use. Anyway, how is it a “unique unit” if all the other units that upgrade from that particular unit gets to keep that same god dam ability? That’s a stupid loophole in design right there and it shouldnt never even existed.

Spanish Tercio keep their +100% against mounted units promotion when upgrading. They make very nice Riflemen, especially against Cossacks.

I think that UUs should keep their promotions when upgrading. It just builds flavor and lets you craft unique strategies. I can't see what is wrong with that - that's what they're for, to evoke a spirit of a civ, at least in one field.

Spanish Tercio keep their +100% against mounted units promotion when upgrading. They make very nice Riflemen, especially against Cossacks.

I think that UUs should keep their promotions when upgrading. It just builds flavor and lets you craft unique strategies. I can't see what is wrong with that - that's what they're for, to evoke a spirit of a civ, at least in one field.

First of all, its unfair that some civs may keep their unique ability and others dont. It also requires a ton of balancing between early UU's and more late UU's, to tell you the truth I really dont see this massive balancing taking place in Firaxis's design.

If there are UU's that are better than other UU's and they get to keep that more powerful ability for more than half of the game (or worse some civs loose their unique ability all together), then it only makes the game more imbalance. Somebody might argue that it is actually great to have this kind of loopholes to achive superunits but it really, really does not change the fact that it just makes the game more imbalance.

Am I the only one who finds the idea of Mechanized Infantry with a war dance hilarious?

You know what's even more hilarious? Picturing the Mechanized Infantry on the other side of battle cowering in fear.

I mostly play my games with either England, Spain or Rome and none of those civs get to carry their UU’s ability through upgrading (at least I have not noticed any)

And conquistadores keep all their special promotions (extra sight and defensive embarkment).

Most UUs with special promotions are reasonably well balanced between them, and when they aren't, it's because the civ has shortcomings somewhere else. For example, janissaries are the best "special promotion UU" by a wide margin, but Ottomans have two awkard UUs (musketmen and lancers, which must be built from scratch), and a below par UA.

The only UU which may be kinda weak are the hardcoded ones, because the window of opportunity to use them is short, and the extra strength may not be that noticeable. The worst cases are Rome and Greece, yet with the right conditions they can do quite a lot of damage in the early game.

Yes, and this is what they will do HIMO.

Of course, if they do that, you can get the +1 range promotion and have range 4 Longbowmen.

Also, it doesn't address China which almost certainly has to be a promotion.

I think that you will be seeing a lot of range 2 Machine guns, even with other civs. The advantage for England is not that huge in that regard, it's just a huge advantage for longbowman right off the gate. Stripping that promotion on upgrade would actually punish England, as they can't get the +1 range with Longbowman, and need a new promotion at the Gattling or Machine Gun to get that +1 range like other civs.

Regarding Rome, it could work if the Legion had a +2 strength promotion that they can keep, or something like that. It would still have an effect at upgrades, but diminishing as the units become stronger. Such an absolute bonus would be great.

And conquistadores keep all their special promotions (extra sight and defensive embarkment).

Wrong. They lose everything now... But imo they are still very good units.

And conquistadores keep all their special promotions

What Maximo the Xth said and also correct me if im wrong, but I dont belive that there ever was a time when cavalry/helicopter could build cities after they were upgraded from conquistador.

Most UUs with special promotions are reasonably well balanced between them

Now that I have realized that some civs UU’s may actually keep their special abilities trough out the game and some other civs may not, I would strongly disagree with what you are saying.

The worst cases are Rome and Greece, yet with the right conditions they can do quite a lot of damage in the early game.

Well they can surely do some nice damage IF in war in that particular moment. Still its way off balance when compared to civs that can have nice bonuses trough out the game after upgrading their UU to something else. Also in vanilla you can pretty safely add at least England to that “worst cases” list of yours.

The advantage for England is not that huge in that regard, it's just a huge advantage for longbowman right off the gate.

Well first of all im not just talking about the Englands UU’s, im talking about every civs UU’s. Im basicly against this loophole because for the sake of AI, as a player I do not want to have even the possibility to have this kind of advantage over the AI. Of course its “cool” to be able to build something like 5 longbowmen and then just without war be able to upgrade them to gatlings/MG’s with +1 extra range. That actually is pretty cool, im not disagreeing with that, but for the sake of balance and more over, for the sake of the AI its just simply not a good idea. I do realize that there are many aspects in the game that without them the AI would actually perform better when compared to human player, one thing that crosses my mind right away is the 1upt, infinite stacking would be a lot easier for the AI to handle. But unlike the 1upt this thing with these UU’s is, –as far as I see it- completely unnecessary and brings so little to the actual gameplay, but on the other hand, it can be quite a big loophole against the AI.

Stripping that promotion on upgrade would actually punish England

Just do the same for everyone else. This way if some civ actually has more strong UU than some other civ, then they would only be able to use it in certain period of time and not like half of the game, like I belive is the whole original point of these UU's. It also helps the AI because it cannot use the potential of these units as well as human players can (its basicly a loophole), so limiting the time of these UU's abilities to just that particular unit actually helps the AI.

I think other civs really need their units to keep these promotions. Otherwise, they're not very good. Maori Warriors is a good example of this. Persian Immortals and Jaguar Warriors also have a very limited shelf-life. Sometimes, the ability to keep the upgrade is the best thing about the unit.

I think other civs really need their units to keep these promotions. Otherwise, they're not very good.

Arquably the easiest way in balancing these UU’s most likely is that you first remove the forever abilities that some units are enjoying, and THEN try to balance them. If someone is weak then make it stronger, if someone is overpowered then make it weaker.

If you need to have some long lasting abilities on different civs units, then why not give each civs each unit (or perhaps just to its melee units, or ranged units, or..) somekind of boost or ability right from the start of the game. It would not actually be that much different from the current system, but on the other hand it would be much more "fair" and that way much easier for the AI to understand. For example if some civs units would like lets say heal faster, then just code the AI to fully understand that civs units ability. That kind of system could not possibly be that much harder to build or balance than the current system we are having. Also civs could still have unique units but they could just fulfill the current civs “unit ability” in some smallish way and only for that period that they are in use.

Arquably the easiest way in balancing these UU’s most likely is that you first remove the forever abilities that some units are enjoying, and THEN try to balance them. If someone is weak then make it stronger, if someone is overpowered then make it weaker.



I bet they will go this route. Building a bunch of a certain unit just so you can keep the special ability down the line feels like an exploit, and introduces needless difficulty in teaching an ai how to play a particular civ effectively. Much betterto keep them as one-offs, and adjust the strength of the abilities accordingly.

Arquably the easiest way in balancing these UU’s most likely is that you first remove the forever abilities that some units are enjoying, and THEN try to balance them. If someone is weak then make it stronger, if someone is overpowered then make it weaker.

If you need to have some long lasting abilities on different civs units, then why not give each civs each unit (or perhaps just to its melee units, or ranged units, or..) somekind of boost or ability right from the start of the game. It would not actually be that much different from the current system, but on the other hand it would be much more "fair" and that way much easier for the AI to understand. For example if some civs units would like lets say heal faster, then just code the AI to fully understand that civs units ability. That kind of system could not possibly be that much harder to build or balance than the current system we are having. Also civs could still have unique units but they could just fulfill the current civs “unit ability” in some smallish way and only for that period that they are in use.

That will take the fun out of the UUs & would actually make early UUs such as Jaguar totally worthless. A better choice would be to teach AI to have special emphasis on killing highly promoted units & make proper use of cavalry to hunt down the retreating forces. I don't like the approach of taking options away from the player instead of fixing AI.

Wrong. They lose everything now... But imo they are still very good units.

Huh? When did that happen? I guess it's been too long since I last played with them... Defensive embarkment is a "lost on upgrade" promotion?

What Maximo the Xth said and also correct me if im wrong, but I dont belive that there ever was a time when cavalry/helicopter could build cities after they were upgraded from conquistador.

Indeed. Neither can upgraded legions build roads nor forts. I was talking about the promotions.


Now that I have realized that some civs UU’s may actually keep their special abilities trough out the game and some other civs may not, I would strongly disagree with what you are saying.

Duh. And if suddenly the special promotions were lost on upgrade, I'd believe the opposite.
Your argument is as valid as what I just wrote.

Well they can surely do some nice damage IF in war in that particular moment. Still its way off balance when compared to civs that can have nice bonuses trough out the game after upgrading their UU to something else. Also in vanilla you can pretty safely add at least England to that “worst cases” list of yours.

Yes, England is among the worst civs in vanilla, there's no arguing about that. And for special promotions that carry over, don't forget that you have to pay the maintenance of those units during the whole game if you want to have some, say, super-riflemen. It's a long term investment. Paying the maintenance of 6 jaguar warriors for 100 turns is expensive, you know...

Well first of all im not just talking about the Englands UU’s, im talking about every civs UU’s. Im basicly against this loophole because for the sake of AI, as a player I do not want to have even the possibility to have this kind of advantage over the AI. Of course its “cool” to be able to build something like 5 longbowmen and then just without war be able to upgrade them to gatlings/MG’s with +1 extra range. That actually is pretty cool, im not disagreeing with that, but for the sake of balance and more over, for the sake of the AI its just simply not a good idea. I do realize that there are many aspects in the game that without them the AI would actually perform better when compared to human player, one thing that crosses my mind right away is the 1upt, infinite stacking would be a lot easier for the AI to handle. But unlike the 1upt this thing with these UU’s is, –as far as I see it- completely unnecessary and brings so little to the actual gameplay, but on the other hand, it can be quite a big loophole against the AI.

It brings a lot to the gameplay, since you have to nurture those special UUs until they finally become useful, and they represent a big part of the uniqueness of a lot of civs. Not to mention that given the speed at which units become obsolete in Civ5, those promotions wouldn't mean much.
The fact that AI doesn't handle it as well as human players is a valid concern, though, but I don't believe that it's enough to justify taking this away.

Just do the same for everyone else. This way if some civ actually has more strong UU than some other civ, then they would only be able to use it in certain period of time and not like half of the game, like I belive is the whole original point of these UU's. It also helps the AI because it cannot use the potential of these units as well as human players can (its basicly a loophole), so limiting the time of these UU's abilities to just that particular unit actually helps the AI.

If the original point of these UUs would be to not keep the promotions on upgrade, it would have already been patched. It's one of the most characteristic features of some Civs, so it's not something that goes unnoticed.

Again, the only problem with the system is the fact that the AI doesn't understand this, but it doesn't understand the concept of promotions either (it will always take insta-heal during combat).

EDIT: I may sound somewhat condescending in this post, but it really isn't my intention to start a war about this...

That will take the fun out of the UUs & would actually make early UUs such as Jaguar totally worthless. A better choice would be to teach AI to have special emphasis on killing highly promoted units & make proper use of cavalry to hunt down the retreating forces. I don't like the approach of taking options away from the player instead of fixing AI.

This.

First of all, its unfair that some civs may keep their unique ability and others dont.

Point of order: no civ "loses their unique ability"...well, other than France. :D


It also requires a ton of balancing between early UU's and more late UU's, to tell you the truth I really dont see this massive balancing taking place in Firaxis's design.

Meh. The only true balance would be no unique units, building, or abilities which would get boring FAST.

In my opinion, the only truly overpowered Unique Unit is the Keshik, because it's basically Medieval era mobile siege weaponry...when everyone else has to wait until Fighters/Bombers/Rocket Artillery for the same effect. However, it's balanced by the fact that it's a dead end, meaning that all of its ranged promotions are wasted once it is upgraded to Cavalry and beyond.


If there are UU's that are better than other UU's and they get to keep that more powerful ability for more than half of the game (or worse some civs loose their unique ability all together) then it only makes the game more imbalance. Somebody might argue that it is actually great to have this kind of loopholes to achive superunits but it really, really does not change the fact that it just makes the game more imbalance.

Some empires have unique units/abilities that aren't as effective in specific circumstances/maps. That's not Firaxis intentionally trying to screw a particular empire or intentionally trying to enhance a particular empire. Firaxis is just trying to introduce game concepts that reflect particular historical advantages empires have had. Is it Firaxis' fault that the English had/has a stellar naval tradition? Or that the Mongol cavalry was unparalleled for its time? Or that the Japanese Zero (and its pilots) were clearly superior to rivals at the beginning of the Second World War?

Personally, I like that fact that the unique promotions of Unique Units are preserved when upgrading because it provides incentive to avoid throwing units en masse at the enemy without regard for the friendly casualties...and one could argue that the reluctance to commit powerful irreplaceable units to risky actions makes those irreplaceable units less useful than slightly less powerful units you are willing to risk.

Besides, it takes a LONG time to create superunits...remember, it's not just unique units that make them powerful, it's the unique units combined with high level promotions that make them so powerful.

That will take the fun out of the UUs & would actually make early UUs such as Jaguar totally worthless.

Im sorry but I fail to see how having a civ specific unit ability (or perhaps more like abilities) would necessarily take away the fun from UU’s.

And for special promotions that carry over, don't forget that you have to pay the maintenance of those units during the whole game if you want to have some, say, super-riflemen.

I really don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Of course you have to pay for your units, but its not like you will survive without them. You will have to have units trough out the game and as far as I understand, the upkeep of “basic” units and UU’s are the same. So..

It brings a lot to the gameplay, since you have to nurture those special UUs until they finally become useful, and they represent a big part of the uniqueness of a lot of civs.

I don’t see at least Firaxis (and me including) agreeing with you on that one. If having UU’s ability move down the upgrade line brings a lot to the game play, then why in the hell Firaxis didn’t give this “feature” to all of the civs like Rome and England? I mean this might be a huge thing for you, but purely gameplay wise its not that big of a deal, its more like just a stupid exploit.

Not to mention that given the speed at which units become obsolete in Civ5, those promotions wouldn't mean much.

This calls for a civ specific unit ability/strength with added flavor of UU’s.

Meh. The only true balance would be no unique units, building, or abilities which would get boring FAST.

Words "balancing" and "removing" are not synonyms to each other.

First of all, its unfair that some civs may keep their unique ability and others dont. It also requires a ton of balancing between early UU's and more late UU's, to tell you the truth I really dont see this massive balancing taking place in Firaxis's design.

If there are UU's that are better than other UU's and they get to keep that more powerful ability for more than half of the game (or worse some civs loose their unique ability all together), then it only makes the game more imbalance. Somebody might argue that it is actually great to have this kind of loopholes to achive superunits but it really, really does not change the fact that it just makes the game more imbalance.

You are wrong... their unique unit does not have a unique ability, it is a promotion available to any other civ!! So what you are saying when the long-bowmen upgrade they will automatically lose the +1 range when other civs may have their ranged units with the same promotion (+1 range earned through promotion) do not lose this promotion when they upgrade. Nonsense really... your argument is null :)

Im sorry but I fail to see how having a civ specific unit ability (or perhaps more like abilities) would necessarily take away the fun from UU’s.

Well with specific unit ability for a civ would make UUs not that special. For example if all Aztec infantry gets 50% bonus in jungles then there will not be much point of creating large no. of jaguars as they will get obsolete quickly, u'll be wasting lots of hammers & gold as well as the newly created swords will be almost as good as jaguar -> swords. Making UUs promo carry over means that u have to plan ahead about your army & what promos u are going to choose for them in future. Not all UUs are like that, some UUs like Keshliks are super powerful at their time but their abilities don't carry over creating more interesting possibilities overall. Also removing unique promos after upgrade would probably lead to boring UUs like they were in cIV where bland strength increase was much stronger & took away the careful planning of ur army.

Except in developer games even the Developers have shown they use this so called "exploit" in the past. If they themselves nurture units over time... why would they change it?

And its not like this isn't traditional for the Civ Franchise. I just don't see the problem with this.

AI's incapability doesn't mean Firaxis agrees with you. Again their own developers in the past have shown with demos/scenes they themselves used this intentional design.

Im sorry but I fail to see how having a civ specific
Words "balancing" and "removing" are not synonyms to each other.

You'll note that I never said "remove" in any form. I merely said that the only true balance is to make sure that everyone has the same things...if the Aztecs have Jaguars, everyone has to have them. If the Persians have Immortals, everyone has to have them. If the Babylonians get a free Great Scientist when discovering Writing, EVERYONE has to get a free Great Scientist when discovering Writing.

That's what I meant. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to play THAT game. :)

I really don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Of course you have to pay for your units, but its not like you will survive without them. You will have to have units trough out the game and as far as I understand, the upkeep of “basic” units and UU’s are the same. So..

6 warriors is complete overkill, not to mention impractical for defense, and a huge waste of hammers and gold (unit maintenance isn't linear...) if you don't intend to do something with them. The starting warrior, a scout and a couple archers is much more than enough to defend yourself. And a warrior rush is virtually impossible to pull off. Thus, if jaguars don't keep their special promotions, they are pretty close to being useless.

I don’t see at least Firaxis (and me including) agreeing with you on that one. If having UU’s ability move down the upgrade line brings a lot to the game play, then why in the hell Firaxis didn’t give this “feature” to all of the civs like Rome and England? I mean this might be a huge thing for you, but purely gameplay wise its not that big of a deal, its more like just a stupid exploit.


1:There are civs which would have no UU whatsoever worth mentioning if special promotions didn't carry over. Aztecs and Ottomans are the most extreme examples.

2:There are UUs which only get a strength bonus and are perfectly fine that way. Bowmen comes to mind. Sure, they become normal crossbowmen after upgrade, but they are so powerful during their age that they make up for it. Extra strength means that you will win fights with more ease (which means you will need a lower investment to invade a neighbour), and also means that most of your troops will survive (so that you are ready for the next war), and will get more promotions (so when you upgrade them, they are on average better than other standard units that have also been upgraded).

3: If you will, special promotions spread the "military golden age" of a civ across a couple of eras, instead of just one unit. Your promoted units will inevitably die, so their uniqueness just takes longer to disappear than other UUs.

4: Recycling one of your arguments: They are Unique Units, they are supposed to be unique, thus different from each other. Some get fancy promotions, some get extra strength, some get a mix of the two, and some are completely changed from the base unit.

5: Firaxis agrees with me. This isn't an exploit. It's such a big part of how you play some civs (that unfortunately you don't use), that it would have been fixed by now otherwise.

I don't think that UUs should lose their unique promo's upon upgrade in general. I agree with others that it is a ton of fun and planning and an integral part of the strength of those UUs and that should not be changed.

The new variable here is the continued archer line and whether or not a unit that is meant to have 1 range *because* it has equal melee strength is intended to be able to have the Range promo and is what ties it back into England specifically.

Seems to me that a MG has a specific niche with their melee strength and that allowing the Range promo to carry over from Composite bows for anyone breaks that.. The longbow is already considered pretty good, if not a dead end so would that be so bad if Range was stripped from all Comp Bows upon upgrade?

Or perhaps the Range promo is available to MG naturally and they are balanced to have 2 range in which case there is no problem.

Or perhaps Longbow are reworked with a diff abil that carries over better to MG without taking away the 1range uniqueness of this new type of unit?

Loosing promotions after upgrade is a No-Go for me! It is such an interesting feature in CiV!

My proposal:

1. Get rid of the +1 range promotion for the archer line at all! It feels odd anyway, if compared to siege units (especially, cannons and later units). So, the +1 range promotion will be unique to siege weapons!

2. As compensation, introduce a new promotion: "precision": +15% or +20% range strength, available for the bowmen line, only. (Or maybe, somebody has a better idea?)

3. Give English longbowmen this promotion from start.

--

This would solve so many problems:
- bowmen feel more realistic, as they can not shoot as far as (range promoted) cannons
- no "danger" of 2 range gattling guns and MGs - something, that bothered me, as soon as I learned, that MG will be an archer upgrade. I think the tactical challenge is so more interesting, with 1 range MGs!
- English longbowmen will still be a good UU, but not imba after upgrade.

What do you think about this?

If we had to scrap completely the "range" promotion, I would give a hardcoded extra range to longbowmen. That way they get to keep their uniqueness, while not keeping the extra range as gatling guns nor being able to reach range 4 as longbowmen.

You are wrong... their unique unit does not have a unique ability, it is a promotion available to any other civ!!

You are doing a great job in missing the whole point.

Well with specific unit ability for a civ would make UUs not that special.

..but at the same time it would make the whole time span of the civ (for every civ) more unique.

For example if all Aztec infantry gets 50% bonus in jungles then there will not be much point of creating large no. of jaguars as they will get obsolete quickly, u'll be wasting lots of hammers & gold as well as the newly created swords will be almost as good as jaguar -> swords.

You obviously arent thinking outside the box here. Even tough you would have civ specific unit ability, it would not mean that you cant have unique units.

Also removing unique promos after upgrade would probably lead to boring UUs like they were in cIV where bland strength increase was much stronger & took away the careful planning of ur army.

First of all im not talking about giving UU’s just a strength increase, since civ specific unit ability would not mean that the UU's could not have these completely unique abilities. However, if you say that giving UU’s only strength increase takes away the planning of army, then you must be free from planning your army when playing as England and/or Rome.

Except in developer games even the Developers have shown they use this so called "exploit" in the past.

If that was designed as a feature from the start, then maybe they just completely forgot to add that said feature to England and Rome. Sounds like a highly unlikely screw up to me.

If they themselves nurture units over time... why would they change it?

Nurturing units in the game and giving unbalanced UU abilities to civs are two different things.

AI's incapability doesn't mean Firaxis agrees with you.

Oh man you are definetly correct! We have seen that many many times that Firaxis isn’t too bothered about the fact how the AI handles some specific features. So you truly are right about that, but that is actually one of the biggest problems of the series. You must realize that im not actually asking to remove anyhting from the game, im just asking to fix something.

You'll note that I never said "remove" in any form.

Fair enough, as long as you’ll just note that I never said anything about finding “true balance”.

6 warriors is complete overkill, not to mention impractical for defense, and a huge waste of hammers and gold (unit maintenance isn't linear...) if you don't intend to do something with them. The starting warrior, a scout and a couple archers is much more than enough to defend yourself. And a warrior rush is virtually impossible to pull off.

Your point being?

Thus, if jaguars don't keep their special promotions, they are pretty close to being useless.

When you look at the big picture what im been saying here lately, then you should propably realize that I have not said that civs should not have long lasting boosts to its units.

1:There are civs which would have no UU whatsoever worth mentioning if special promotions didn't carry over. Aztecs and Ottomans are the most extreme examples.

Same thing what I said abowe.

2:There are UUs which only get a strength bonus and are perfectly fine that way. Bowmen comes to mind. Sure, they become normal crossbowmen after upgrade, but they are so powerful during their age that they make up for it. Extra strength means that you will win fights with more ease (which means you will need a lower investment to invade a neighbour), and also means that most of your troops will survive (so that you are ready for the next war), and will get more promotions (so when you upgrade them, they are on average better than other standard units that have also been upgraded).

Sure, IF you are at war at the moment, if not then that’s about it then. For example a ability that was available right from the start of the game and that will also last to the end of the game is much more powerful, when used in the right way of course. Btw I have already told you this.

3: If you will, special promotions spread the "military golden age" of a civ across a couple of eras, instead of just one unit. Your promoted units will inevitably die, so their uniqueness just takes longer to disappear than other UUs.

When you also take the AI into concider, I do not see how this current system would be so much better way of achieving things than the system that I have described, where you would have civ specific unit ability right from the start but also UU’s.

4: Recycling one of your arguments: They are Unique Units, they are supposed to be unique, thus different from each other. Some get fancy promotions, some get extra strength, some get a mix of the two, and some are completely changed from the base unit.

I agree, they should truly and only be unique units! If you want to have long lasting unit effects (wich would actually be great), then why not give civs a specific unit ability + with UU’s?

5: Firaxis agrees with me. This isn't an exploit. It's such a big part of how you play some civs (that unfortunately you don't use), that it would have been fixed by now otherwise.

You have not yet answered to my question. If that is such a big part to the game, then why Firaxis denied this “big part of the game” from at least two civs, England and Rome? That just does not make any sense.

If having UU’s ability move down the upgrade line brings a lot to the game play, then why in the hell Firaxis didn’t give this “feature” to all of the civs like Rome and England?

Basically what elprofessor says is the crux of the matter:-

There are UUs which only get a strength bonus and are perfectly fine that way. Bowmen comes to mind. Sure, they become normal crossbowmen after upgrade, but they are so powerful during their age that they make up for it. Extra strength means that you will win fights with more ease (which means you will need a lower investment to invade a neighbour), and also means that most of your troops will survive (so that you are ready for the next war), and will get more promotions (so when you upgrade them, they are on average better than other standard units that have also been upgraded).

As it stands, units like the Legion, Companion Cavalry, Bowman and Hoplites have straight up stat bonuses that make them powerful enough in their own era that they don't need to have promotions added to them (that would last the rest of the game) to make them worthwhile. Compare this to units like the Jaguar and Maori warrior, which simply due to the unit they replace, would be seriously underwhelming without persistent promotions.

The longbowman doesn't keep its promotion not because Firaxis screwed up or because they wanted to nerf England, but because it becomes a Rifleman, which can't use the Range promotion anyway.

Now that I have realized that some civs UU’s may actually keep their special abilities trough out the game and some other civs may not, I would strongly disagree with what you are saying.

Surely the fact that you've only just realised this means that it can't be quite so imbalanced as you seem to think? :P

You have not yet answered to my question. If that is such a big part to the game, then why Firaxis denied this “big part of the game” from at least two civs, England and Rome? That just does not make any sense.

Ok, let's see if we are on the same page here: your main concern is that some civs have UUs that give benefits to later upgrades, while some civs don't, and you feel that this is unfair. Your argument is that, since not ALL civs have a UU with a benefit that carries over, it must be a mistake from Firaxis. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And I believe that most civs that don't have a carry-over UU have more significant boni that do last less time, and that this is usually enough to balance them.

You argue against me that the fact that they have a bigger boost is irrelevant, since to make use of it you have to be at war just as you unlock said UU, while for carry-over UUs, you can be at war any time afterwards.

My personal opinion is that, when you have a non-carry-over UU, you have to plan around it, so that you are indeed at war as you finish the beeline towards your UU, which most of the time is possible and very beneficial, even moreso since you will end up with extra cities and a highly promoted army for future invasions. The extra survivability and promotions of your army might even make up for the absent special promotions.

The only reason that would forbid to do this is if the UU comes very early, and you are isolated (small continents, for example). That sucks, but at least you don't have to spend hammers and money on an army for a long time, and you can beeline scientific techs safely.

Note: I am not against giving extra promotions to all UUs. What I'm trying to convey is that I believe it's not really necessary, and that the game is already quite balanced for most civs (there are exceptions, but the only one mentioned in this thread is England, whose only Unique Characteristic for 99% of the games is the Longbowmen, since Naval warfare is irrelevant). Plus, you get more diversity this way (in my opinion, which apparently differs from yours).

And there is a pretty big difference between having an "upgradable" extra promotion, and giving all your units that extra promotion. The first one requires a heavy investment early on (when you could have been building and buying more important things), and it disappears as the game goes on.

Ok, let's see if we are on the same page here: your main concern is that some civs have UUs that give benefits to later upgrades, while some civs don't, and you feel that this is unfair.

Not that simple since there is also an AI concern in what I am saying. But pretty close actually, please read on.

My personal opinion is that, when you have a non-carry-over UU, you have to plan around it, so that you are indeed at war as you finish the beeline towards your UU, which most of the time is possible and very beneficial, even moreso since you will end up with extra cities and a highly promoted army for future invasions.

That is actually a problem. One UU gives bonus right from the start trough out the game and the other UU (as you said it) in many cases forces you to wage war in order to take advantage of that current civs UU, otherwise it will be completely useless. In this regard alone If you plan on playing peacefully, then the Aztecs are actually a better choice trough out the game than for instance England or Rome. Unless of course you actually get "lucky" and someone declares war at you at the right moment, but as you already said, the correct way is to wage war yourself at the right moment. I do realize that some civs are intended to be better at something than some other civs, but this would mean that for instance England should be better at war than Aztecs because as you said it yourself, it basicly forces you to go to war in order to benefit from its UU's.

However, my ultimate point was that there could be a more reasonable way for the player and easier way for the AI to handle this. If we would give each civ a civ specific unit ability/strenght wich would be available right from the start of the game. There could still be UU’s with unique traits, but this could potentially be more interesting than just plain UU’s with forever lasting abilities and non forever lasting abilities. You obviously would have to remove the UU’s forever lasting abilities since now your civ would have some special ability that lasts trough out the game. Think about how it would not only help the AI, but it would also give more (easily) flavor for different AI civs. That’s my ultimate point.

Surely the fact that you've only just realised this means that it can't be quite so imbalanced as you seem to think? :P

Maybe, but still I genuinely think that my idea might be better for the AI and actually also better for the player than the current one.

I think promotions being kept after upgrading is a really good thing.

I'm not sure about Roman units, haven't played them recently, but the English promotion actually carries over. But it's useless after upgrading, since the upgrade path is to melee units.
And that is far bigger issue that needs fixing and by the looks of it seems to be addressed in G+K!

Actually most civs UU's do. the only exceptions I can think of are the mounted archer units.

Anything with a straight Strength upgrade doesn't - both Greek UUs, for example.

That is actually a problem. One UU gives bonus right from the start trough out the game and the other UU (as you said it) in many cases forces you to wage war in order to take advantage of that current civs UU, otherwise it will be completely useless.

Those UUs tend to totally dominate their own era, to the point where the thing you carry forward is a bunch of extra cities and a bunch of extra experience. By doing it differently on different Civs, you get very different gameplay experiences across Civs. This is a *good* thing. Put it this way: If all UUs carried forward or if none did, which would you rather have: Jaguars, or Hoplites? Hoplites by a mile, right? Warriors aren't very useful already, and Hoplites are a stronger upgrade from Spearman than Jaguars are from Warriors, right? They'd have to nerf Hoplites badly to balance the two if they worked the same way.

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I like it.

If we had to scrap completely the "range" promotion, I would give a hardcoded extra range to longbowmen. That way they get to keep their uniqueness, while not keeping the extra range as gatling guns nor being able to reach range 4 as longbowmen.

That would be possible, too - and maybe is a good compromise, as I see the fun in having long range longbowmen. :)

The only drawback would be, that this doesn't pass during upgrade (of course not, as this is the intention...) and therefore weakens England. Again.

@Drawmeus. My english skills might be far worse than I tought they were, but I really -really- belive that in my previous post I have allready ansered to that.

aziantuntija, I do have one question here: When have you ever tried to go a peaceful route with Rome? They are meant to have an early war (to expand rapidly) and then AFTER the legions and the other UU whose name escapes me, they focus on production with their UA. Since their UU's (especially the legions) are stronger, more of them will be promoted and upgraded, which is their real ability, to survive and become stronger faster than most other similar UU's. As for Civ's like Babylon, their UU isn't meant to become a superpowerful unit, it's meant to help them survive the agressive civ's like Rome and Mongolia. I do agree with you that the way the AI uses UU's needs work... a lot of work, but that's an AI problem. What you're suggesting hurts the players experience; each civ has different strategies that work best for them, and which all others suck at. Rome's strategy is an early swords-rush-fueled war, which sets them up for either another war with well-promoted troops, or a strong standing to heads towards a scientific victory, with their production focus. Mongolia's strategy is get keshiks, conquer. Romes UU actually requires more strategy to use effectively, because part of Mongolia's UA makes keshiks overpowered in their time. However, the supposed weakness of the legions is much less than the keshiks once you reach the Industrial era: now you have rifleman who are stronger because they fought in more battles than the swordsmen that China used, whereas Mongolia has cavalry that are far weaker in direct combat than Romes moderatly promoted cavalry that was upgraded from a knight. There is balance in the game already; if you want a super powerful unit that can decimate any civ quickly, you better go to war and win quick, before your UU's advantage becomes less potent/ insignificant. This is also a pretty good representation of the arms race. If your enemy has a powerful weapon, build one that's even better!

All that said, some UU's do need a bit of work, and I wouldn't mind seeing the ones that have a strength increase recieve a small but permanent percent modifier, like the Ottomans Jannisaries. But reworking the whole system is unnessacery, at least in my opinon.

aziantuntija, I do have one question here: When have you ever tried to go a peaceful route with Rome? They are meant to have an early war (to expand rapidly) and then AFTER the legions and the other UU whose name escapes me, they focus on production with their UA. Since their UU's (especially the legions) are stronger, more of them will be promoted and upgraded, which is their real ability, to survive and become stronger faster than most other similar UU's. As for Civ's like Babylon, their UU isn't meant to become a superpowerful unit, it's meant to help them survive the agressive civ's like Rome and Mongolia. I do agree with you that the way the AI uses UU's needs work... a lot of work, but that's an AI problem. What you're suggesting hurts the players experience; each civ has different strategies that work best for them, and which all others suck at. Rome's strategy is an early swords-rush-fueled war, which sets them up for either another war with well-promoted troops, or a strong standing to heads towards a scientific victory, with their production focus. Mongolia's strategy is get keshiks, conquer. Romes UU actually requires more strategy to use effectively, because part of Mongolia's UA makes keshiks overpowered in their time. However, the supposed weakness of the legions is much less than the keshiks once you reach the Industrial era: now you have rifleman who are stronger because they fought in more battles than the swordsmen that China used, whereas Mongolia has cavalry that are far weaker in direct combat than Romes moderatly promoted cavalry that was upgraded from a knight. There is balance in the game already; if you want a super powerful unit that can decimate any civ quickly, you better go to war and win quick, before your UU's advantage becomes less potent/ insignificant. This is also a pretty good representation of the arms race. If your enemy has a powerful weapon, build one that's even better!

All that said, some UU's do need a bit of work, and I wouldn't mind seeing the ones that have a strength increase recieve a small but permanent percent modifier, like the Ottomans Jannisaries. But reworking the whole system is unnessacery, at least in my opinon.

:agree:

aziantuntija, I do have one question here: When have you ever tried to go a peaceful route with Rome? They are meant to have an early war (to expand rapidly) and then AFTER the legions and the other UU whose name escapes me, they focus on production with their UA. Since their UU's (especially the legions) are stronger, more of them will be promoted and upgraded, which is their real ability, to survive and become stronger faster than most other similar UU's. As for Civ's like Babylon, their UU isn't meant to become a superpowerful unit, it's meant to help them survive the agressive civ's like Rome and Mongolia. I do agree with you that the way the AI uses UU's needs work... a lot of work, but that's an AI problem. What you're suggesting hurts the players experience; each civ has different strategies that work best for them, and which all others suck at. Rome's strategy is an early swords-rush-fueled war, which sets them up for either another war with well-promoted troops, or a strong standing to heads towards a scientific victory, with their production focus. Mongolia's strategy is get keshiks, conquer. Romes UU actually requires more strategy to use effectively, because part of Mongolia's UA makes keshiks overpowered in their time. However, the supposed weakness of the legions is much less than the keshiks once you reach the Industrial era: now you have rifleman who are stronger because they fought in more battles than the swordsmen that China used, whereas Mongolia has cavalry that are far weaker in direct combat than Romes moderatly promoted cavalry that was upgraded from a knight. There is balance in the game already; if you want a super powerful unit that can decimate any civ quickly, you better go to war and win quick, before your UU's advantage becomes less potent/ insignificant. This is also a pretty good representation of the arms race. If your enemy has a powerful weapon, build one that's even better!

All that said, some UU's do need a bit of work, and I wouldn't mind seeing the ones that have a strength increase recieve a small but permanent percent modifier, like the Ottomans Jannisaries. But reworking the whole system is unnessacery, at least in my opinon.

Thirded!

To tell you the truth this is pretty frustrating :sad:. I introduced an idea about a system for a civ game, not particulary for civ5 or for G&K, but maybe for future civ, like civ6. Then it feels like everyone is just nitpicking about some other things, it feels like nobodys truly understanding what I am saying here. Im not blaming you guys for it, since the problem is very likely in my way of expressing myself in english. I must admit that I do not have the time or the energy to engage further into a debate wich does not seem to go anywhere but also doesn’t even take place in my native language.

Altough I do belive that Firaxis isnt going to completely rework the current system in G&K (or in any other expansion that would possible follow the G&K), but I will say that I would not be surprised if civ6 would have a system that would be pretty close to the system that I was describing before ;).

To tell you the truth this is pretty frustrating :sad:. I introduced an idea about a system for a civ game, not particulary for civ5 or for G&K, but maybe for future civ, like civ6. Then it feels like everyone is just nitpicking about some other things, it feels like nobodys truly understanding what I am saying here. Im not blaming you guys for it, since the problem is very likely in my way of expressing myself in english. I must admit that I do not have the time or the energy to engage further into a debate wich does not seem to go anywhere but also doesn’t even take place in my native language.

Altough I do belive that Firaxis isnt going to completely rework the current system in G&K (or in any other expansion that would possible follow the G&K), but I will say that I would not be surprised if civ6 would have a system that would be pretty close to the system that I was describing before ;).

Oh I know the feeling of it being frustrating to not be able to talk in my native language in debates. :p (I.e. visiting family etc.) I hope we aren't being too hard headed but to put it bluntly I like the way the system is now where you have to balance your eras and buildings to a proper strategy. Also since you didn't notice this, I think the system does a good enough job of immersion as is.

@Aziantuntija

I, for myself, understand what you are saying perfectly. I just don't think it's a good idea, for many reasons which have already been listed above.

Having UUs which behave in different ways, some of which are weak at a given time, but are good when they upgrade; and others which are very strong but only for a certain amount of time is nice. Replacing all of this variety with, in effect, a military UA is just not my cup of tea.

@Aziantuntija

I, for myself, understand what you are saying perfectly. I just don't think it's a good idea, for many reasons which have already been listed above.

Having UUs which behave in different ways, some of which are weak at a given time, but are good when they upgrade; and others which are very strong but only for a certain amount of time is nice. Replacing all of this variety with, in effect, a military UA is just not my cup of tea.

Obviously you have not understood what I meant. I have not said that UU's should be replaced with a "military AU".

Obviously you have not understood what I meant. I have not said that UU's should be replaced with a "military AU".

If we would give each civ a civ specific unit ability/strenght wich would be available right from the start of the game. There could still be UU’s with unique traits, but this could potentially be more interesting than just plain UU’s with forever lasting abilities and non forever lasting abilities.


That sounds very much like replacing the variety of UUs we have (a combination of short term and long term ones) and adding a UA type of thing related to the military.

That sounds very much like replacing the variety of UUs we have (a combination of short term and long term ones) and adding a UA type of thing related to the military.

What I meant was that we would have this what you called "military UA" and on top of that we would ALSO have unique units. So that we would have BOTH!

I will try to be more careful next time I try to explain something in english, but now I will go to sleep because im tired. Good night :).

What I meant was that we would have this what you called "military UA" and on top of that we would ALSO have unique units. So that we would have BOTH!

I will try to be more careful next time I try to explain something in english, but now I will go to sleep because im tired. Good night :).

then what would be the point in having a UU? As it stands, we have UU that start with a certain promotion that is available to all civs (as is the case with England) and those that are only available to certain civs (as is the case with Rome). On top of that there are "Unique Abilities" that may or may not be military in nature (as is the case with America, which just so happens to also be a promotion available to scouts and thus all civs).

In the case of America, should they have both a "military UA" and a "civic UA"? As it stands, America's UA is not unit specific, though it is a "military UA" available to land units. England's UA is also a "military UA" available to sea units. Arabia doesn't have a "military UA" (trade caravans).

To tell you the truth this is pretty frustrating :sad:.

You have just discovered a gameplay aspect of the game that most of us already knew, and now you are trying to rationalize it. Your idea of a "military UA" that would replace the "carry-over promotions" but not the Unique Units is interesting, but it only solves partially a problem that most of us believe isn't even there (easier for the AI to understand, but alters a gameplay aspect with whom most of us are already confortable).

Do start a thread in the "suggestions and ideas" subforum of Civ5 though, if you want to discuss it. You will get a warmer response, although the traffic there is much lower.

And I can understand your pain, English isn't my native language either, but people down here don't seem to mind some approximative grammar ;)

ok sorry to reiterate but the reality as I see it is that UUs overall will not be changed in regards to upgrades vs hard bonuses as they are too integral to the unique playstyles of the various civs (which has been covered again many times as to why).

What I am interested in personally and back to the OP is "What is the purpose/niche of Machine Guns and how does that relate to England's UU"

Of course it is only speculation that we are armed with on this topic.... but I would argue that

1) Archer line of units is very weak to melee for a reason
2) The trade off is less range for greater melee strength
3) this creates a "new class of unit" / new niche that has not been seen
4) Allowing this "new class" of unit to have the same ability as the Archery line *without* the range penalty seems strange?*

I guess number 4 is my main thing.. Why bother to make a Frontline ranged/melee combo unit that can have 2 range?

If the intent was to continue the Archer line into industrial / modern they could have gone with Grenadiers, Mortars after Composite bows and left them with weak melee defense just like their predecessors right?

So yes I am speculating on the thought process of devs so it's pretty much useless but still makes me think that Gatling guns should lose the Range promo if the devs were on the ball and wanted this new dimension to the game of frontline ranged units.

Which perhaps means a change to longbows.

Does anyone have a *link* to whatever preview said that England isn't getting its extra spy?

That's a lot of text!

I'm going to sidestep the whole 'Should the Longbowman keep its promotion' and 'Is the new England overpowered?' arguments.

I'm rather more interested in how G+K changes England's general style of play.

The bonus spy (assuming its still there) is a nice buff to what is an awfully weak Civ. I love playing as England in Civ (hell, I wrote the War Academy guide on them) but in comparison to a lot of other UA's it's weak. This is a nice boost.

From a naval strategy point of view, things have got somewhat worse for England. Assuming you have control of the oceans not being able to waltz right through an enemy invasion fleet could concievably mean that you'll need more ships than England of old would normally require. More damage needed per kill could mean that the days of SoTL's one-shotting enemy frigates are over - nevermind killing embarked naval units at pace. It does make naval invasions less risky which should be a boon for a water-based Civ, but the problem is that naval invasions for England are already less risky. Making them less risky for everybody else reduces the relative benefit England gets from its already relatively underpowered UA.

Capturing enemy cities with ships only? That's nice, but the net effect is relatively minimal. You can take coastal cities with ships provided you have one land unit available to finish the job. As England will tend to dominate the seas you tend not to have to worry about its safety. Post-G+K will mean you don't have to have this unit which is a plus, but hardly game-changing or enough of a benefit to outweigh the extended naval engagements.

The Longbowman upgrade path though - that's where the money is. I suspect that they'll replace siege units entirely for England and I wouldn't be overly surprised if England's armies come to consist of nothing but Longbowmen and their appropriate upgrades. I actually think Gatling Guns and Machine Guns are a bit overpowered myself, if the well-of-souls pages are accurate. What'll mean more than anything else though is that England will have a land-based combat bonus for quite a bit of the game. This only gets to work though if the Longbowman bonus remains a promotion as it currently is. My worry is that it'll be changed to a stat increase during development and England will stay well down the list of mediocre Civs.

Yeah I know I said that I wont post anymore about this thing, but since it seems like that you have now understood what I tried to say before, I will answer to your critics.

”Military UA” (with regular UA + UU’s of course) would help the AI because then you could code the AI to use that particular civs ability right from the start of the game. This is much more easier to code the AI to than just the UU system where the UU appears in different time with different civs and that some civs get to carry the benefits and others don’t. Just like the regular UA, the “military UA” would also give all civs more characteristic and in overall make the game more interesting. Example: England is basicly already having a “military UA” with their +2 extra ship movement, just add a regular UA to its arsenal and BAM, theres one civ with UA, UU’s and the new “military UA”.

And please everyone, think outside the box when thinking about this “military UA” –thing. Im not saying they should change the system in the upcoming G&K or any other possible future expansion for the civ5 for that matter. Why? Because the civ5’s AI would not propably benefit anything from it, obviously because it is not build for it. So if you are waiting me to rework all the civs in civ5 and present them to you in this conversation, then sorry to disappoint you but its not going to happen. England was just an example how the “military UA” could work in practice, im sure you all got the picture.

Do start a thread in the "suggestions and ideas" subforum of Civ5 though, if you want to discuss it. You will get a warmer response, although the traffic there is much lower.

It took me about 5 posts to actually get my point across for you guys (because my bad english skills). So you can be sure that I am not going to start a thread about this thing, im NOT going to start this all over again :crazyeye:. But thanks for the tip anyway.

You have just discovered a gameplay aspect of the game that most of us already knew, and now you are trying to rationalize it.

Yeah I see what you are aiming with that, how can I possibly understand the system if I just discovered it, right? Well this is not rocket science, actually it’s a loophole that you just happen to call “gameplay aspect”. AI wise im normally not too fond of adding new gameplay systems to a game (for obvious reasons), but this case is fundamentally different. Because If not all the civs has that what you call “gameplay aspect” available and the AI does not even understand to use it –at all-, then I would not call it a “gameplay aspect”, it’s a loophole for the human player. And as I have already told that I know that there are many systems in the game that us humans can use more better than the AI can, (I mean that’s why the AI gets so many bonuses, right?) but combat is a bit different. The AI aids are far more limited in combat, sure you can give the AI more units but that’s about it. So therefore giving this kind of loophole for the human players in combat, is actually a huge mistake. So yeah, I actually do understand whats going on with this “feature”, even tough I just discovered it. Also FYI, the reason why I haven’t really discovered this before is the fact that almost all my games have been with civs that do not have this loophole in their UU’s, like England and Rome. So please don’t think im stupid just because I (because of a personal preference) haven’t got the same change to actually discover it as the others who have discovered it propably has got.

Does anyone have a *link* to whatever preview said that England isn't getting its extra spy?

That's actually not something which is really totally confirmed, see here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11399846&highlight=extra+spy#post11399846).

That's actually not something which is really totally confirmed, see here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11399846&highlight=extra+spy#post11399846).

Thanks!

So please don’t think im stupid just because I (because of a personal preference) haven’t got the same change to actually discover it as the others who have discovered it propably has got.

Ok, re-reading my post I come across as quite rude, even though it wasn't my intention, so sorry for that. I never meant to convey that you were stupid.:blush:

Ditto, I just tried to explain the balance as I understood. I didn't understand your intention and thought you wanted to make these changes to the current ciV system, I think your ideas would be worth looking into for civ 6, though.

Maybe England should be strong in those periods? The age of commerce (frigates and setting up an over sea empire) and in the industrial age (with the gatling and machine gun). Seems to make sense to me. I also dont see it being to overpowered. Machine guns will soon get superceded by tanks.

I don't see Liz invading the world. Maybe in human hands it is a bit more unbalanced.

Ok, re-reading my post I come across as quite rude, even though it wasn't my intention, so sorry for that. I never meant to convey that you were stupid.:blush:

No problem at all. Looking back what I wrote, maybe I should of rephrased what I said.

Fair enough, as long as you’ll just note that I never said anything about finding “true balance”.


Fair enough, "true balance" was a term I used, and I meant it to be synonymous with "effective balance". I merely meant that I never even implied removing units to maintain proper/effective game balance.

I still stand by what I said, though. It seems like the only effective balancing would be to make sure that every empire has the same exact units and same exact abilities. To do otherwise would be to introduce (potential) imbalance.

That's really the issue that you bring up, yes? That some Unique Units have promotions/abilities that are both persistent (don't go away on the unit being upgraded) and unavailable to other empires, which some consider to be poor balance.

How would you propose having empires that have distinctions beyond those of mere graphics or different city names? I daresay that any inherent gameplay advantage that one empire has that another empire does not could be similarly considered to be poor balancing.

Altough I find for my part ''Sun Never Set'' an incredible bonus on the right maps, apparently many people find England somewhat underpowered.

In addition the James Bond lampshading (one extra spy ), in Kings, something will change

Longbowen might keep their extra range as they evolve in gatling troopers and machine gunners.

The range bonus make the Longbowmen quite OP in their epoch. This advantage will now last to the end of the game (altough the speed of modern units might offset a bit the advantage of the extra range(1)


(1)At least for me, the biggest advantage of the range is that the infantry can't really close on longbowmen (the range being larger than their move speed) : usually, knights can't really close on them before.

In addition the James Bond lampshading (one extra spy ), in Kings, something will change

L

Well we aren't exactly sure of this yet. I believe that there was some questioning about this at PAX

and in the other thread...

You might like to check this thread. :)

forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=459475

Merged with existing thread.

@Aziantuntija

I, for myself, understand what you are saying perfectly. I just don't think it's a good idea, for many reasons which have already been listed above.

Having UUs which behave in different ways, some of which are weak at a given time, but are good when they upgrade; and others which are very strong but only for a certain amount of time is nice. Replacing all of this variety with, in effect, a military UA is just not my cup of tea.

Pretty heady thread but this sums it up very nicely. One of the greatest joys of Civ5 are the Unique Units and diversity they bring to the game (which previous versions lacked). Most of the time, I pchoose the civ that I want to play because of their UU, balancing an early one vs. a middle one vs. a late one for different gameplays.

I think one of the fundamental advantages of the current system is that it values quality (promotions) over quantity (Civ4). Fighting with only 7 highly-promoted Camel Archers (for example) was great fun and made me focus on keeping them alive, along with careful placement and not abusing insta-heal. It got to the point where each one was so valuable and unreplaceable that great care had to be taken. I understand that this is not inherent to Unique Units but I do like the "head start" (along with the civ-flavored uniqueness) that they provide in their quality.

With the improvements for the English there can be only one thing said:

Britannia rules the waves!

In this thread we had some discussion about UU's unique abilities and should they or should they not keep those UA's after upgrade. I said that the UA should not pass on after the upgrade because of couple of things, the AI being one of those reasons. Well, how does the G&K handle this "problem"?

I wont have it until tomorrow, but I'd guess that losing indirect fire will go SOME way towards keeping MG-Longbows under control.

I wont have it until tomorrow, but I'd guess that losing indirect fire will go SOME way towards keeping MG-Longbows under control.

The MG or gatling will never have indirect fire.

With the improvements for the English there can be only one thing said:

Britannia rules the waves!
Until you face a three times as large Ottoman navy.
Which he dont need to either build or pay gold in upkeep for btw (well, 1/3 tbh). :lol:

Basically he can faceroll the keyboard and your world famous English navy is at the bottom of the sea.

Nice balancing there, Firaxis. :crazyeye:

In this thread we had some discussion about UU's unique abilities and should they or should they not keep those UA's after upgrade. I said that the UA should not pass on after the upgrade because of couple of things, the AI being one of those reasons. Well, how does the G&K handle this "problem"?
im almost 100% positive the +1 range transfers since i've had rifles with +1 range pre-GK

Until you face a three times as large Ottoman navy.
Which he dont need to either build or pay gold in upkeep for btw (well, 1/3 tbh). :lol:

Basically he can faceroll the keyboard and your world famous English navy is at the bottom of the sea.

Nice balancing there, Firaxis. :crazyeye:
disagree the british navy with ship of the lines faceroll anything that steps on a blue tile. melee ships (with the exception of privateers) seem 100% outclassed by ranged ships as melee ships dont have the damage to be a serious threat to ranged ships or cities. Ranged ships include the frigate and battleship while the melee versions are a caravel(LOL?) and the destroyer. The ottomans only outperform the british ships pre-Gallass.

disagree the british navy with ship of the lines faceroll anything that steps on a blue tile. melee ships (with the exception of privateers) seem 100% outclassed by ranged ships as melee ships dont have the damage to be a serious threat to ranged ships or cities. Ranged ships include the frigate and battleship while the melee versions are a caravel(LOL?) and the destroyer. The ottomans only outperform the british ships pre-Gallass.
I think you miss the fact that a Ship of the Line is in fact not much better (2 measly points in range strenght) at all than a standard frigate. Its just 20 hammers cheaper.

I HOPE this have changed now in G&Ks? But if not, the Ottomans will easily rule the sea with three times bigger navy.
Oh, and did i mention that the Ottomans will have that navy WAY before you and that he dont even have to build them? The ships are for free! :p
Not only are they free, he actually gets gold for getting them...! :crazyeye:

... omg

im almost 100% positive the +1 range transfers since i've had rifles with +1 range pre-GK

Yes, the range transfers.

Yes, England is a powerhouse. Gatling + Machine Guns can act as modern archers, mowing down infantry, Ship of the Line + Battleship will completely obliterate coastal cities and units (Battleships have 3 range, FYI), and the extra spy will keep you in the tech race more.

I like G + K because England is now more than just navy + longbowman. The extra spy, while not OP, is certainly nice for counter-espionage, and a nice nod to Elizabeth's spymaster, Walsingham.

Longbowmen keeping their +1 range upgrade is really cool. Playing Elizabeth with privateers and Ships of the Line against Korean turtle ships is pretty fun.

I think you miss the fact that a Ship of the Line is in fact not much better (2 measly points in range strenght) at all than a standard frigate. Its just 20 hammers cheaper.

I HOPE this have changed now in G&Ks? But if not, the Ottomans will easily rule the sea with three times bigger navy.
Oh, and did i mention that the Ottomans will have that navy WAY before you and that he dont even have to build them? The ships are for free! :p
Not only are they free, he actually gets gold for getting them...! :crazyeye:

... omg They are free well a -25g cost but still they are bad. Melee ships are terrible when compared to their ranged counter parts. Part of this imo is the fact that the melee ships are the worse ships in the game, I mean the Caravel, destroyer, trieme, and by association with the treime a galley. You honestly have to ask yourself. If you want to take a city are you going to bring caravels over frigates? i mean in vanilla caravels were nothing more then the scout ship that upgraded to a destroyer. It's not like they got a combat upgrade or anything.

They are free well a -25g cost but still they are bad. Melee ships are terrible when compared to their ranged counter parts. Part of this imo is the fact that the melee ships are the worse ships in the game, I mean the Caravel, destroyer, trieme, and by association with the treime a galley. You honestly have to ask yourself. If you want to take a city are you going to bring caravels over frigates? i mean in vanilla caravels were nothing more then the scout ship that upgraded to a destroyer. It's not like they got a combat upgrade or anything.

Using melee ships, you can take coastal cities without the need for a land-based attack. This is amazing for continents games where your units are vulnerable when disembarking on enemy land.

They are free well a -25g cost but still they are bad. Melee ships are terrible when compared to their ranged counter parts. Part of this imo is the fact that the melee ships are the worse ships in the game, I mean the Caravel, destroyer, trieme, and by association with the treime a galley. You honestly have to ask yourself. If you want to take a city are you going to bring caravels over frigates? i mean in vanilla caravels were nothing more then the scout ship that upgraded to a destroyer. It's not like they got a combat upgrade or anything.
Have you played the Ottomans in G&K? If not, ill still trust everyone that actually have, and they do say that they completely faceroll everything on blue tiles with their vastly superior navy.
Not only do they completely obliterate everything with their 3x as large navy, they actually only have to pay only a 1/3 of that navys upkeep. AND they can get free new ships and money to pay for the upkeep from farming a coastal barbcamp or two.

As for your argument that ranged ships > melee. Sure. Its just that little detail that the Ottomans can have three times more ranged ships as well! :)
Nothing stops them from building ranged ships while getting melee ships for free.

Everyone who have played the Ottoman civ says its ludicrously overpowered. It will be very interesting to try it out in G&K in a few hours.

you could bring a marine or just have an amphib promoted unit if you wanted all that. Melee ships are honestly useless from start to finish except maybe for selling. I'm a big Ottoman fan because of their land atvantage and the free ships are great for just throwing to their doom. I'll build a caravel to explore that's about it, the privateer is amazing because of it's ability to take enemy ships. It's just that out side of those 2 skills (the high movement and the steal a unit in the water) There isnt much that a melee ship does that other types of units do better

edit: @securion yeah i play ottoman, like i said i love the land advantage that you call a Janissary. It's cool to have a bunch of ships and all but if all they are good for is being sunk and a suicide bomber type of ship it's pretty useless. I will admit that my naval experience with the ottomans leaves much to be desired especially when compared to my england naval experience. But numbers don't mean much when you have ship of the lines that are able to 1 shot caravels while being cheap and easy to make since longswords upgrade to muskets, freeing up iron. I dont have a problem with all melee ships, i think the privateer is all types of broken (infact if the ottoman galley could promote to a privateer instead of a trieme that, to me, would be incredible). I just think they are outclassed 100% and as such kinda useless

They are free well a -25g cost but still they are bad. Melee ships are terrible when compared to their ranged counter parts. Part of this imo is the fact that the melee ships are the worse ships in the game, I mean the Caravel, destroyer, trieme, and by association with the treime a galley. You honestly have to ask yourself. If you want to take a city are you going to bring caravels over frigates? i mean in vanilla caravels were nothing more then the scout ship that upgraded to a destroyer. It's not like they got a combat upgrade or anything.

Pretty funny that you completely ignore the (melee) privateers which are available at the same tech as frigates. A few of them with different promotions can capture a whole coast line full of ships and cities. And after that, you have all those enemy frigates fighting on your side. :lol:

Of course, a healthy mix of melee and ranged ships is better but saying that melee ships are useless is just wrong. It seems like you only compare galleassies to triremes and frigates to caravels (with several techs between them in both comparisons). That's not how it works ^^

Pretty funny that you completely ignore the (melee) privateers which are available at the same tech as frigates. A few of them with different promotions can capture a whole coast line full of ships and cities. And after that, you have all those enemy frigates fighting on your side. :lol:

Of course, a healthy mix of melee and ranged ships is better but saying that melee ships are useless is just wrong. It seems like you only compare galleassies to triremes and frigates to caravels (with several techs between them in both comparisons). That's not how it works ^^

actually i've said i like the privateers(to make matters worse it's in the post above yours) but i dont believe they are on the galley -> Trieme -> caravel -> destroyer path, so the ottomans can't upgrade to them which is what we were talking about.

and I was comparing melee and ranged ships of the same era, i cant help that one comes at the beginning of an era and another comes at the end. Triemes are the pre-caravel (renaissance era) melee ship and the ranged counter-part being the galleass. should i compare the medieval era galleass to the renaissance era caravel?

even if you think its unfair at that point, when Renaissance hits you have a caravel as the strongest upgradable melee ship in the game compared to the frigate, the strongest upgradable renaissance era ranged ship.

melee ships are too weak compared to their ranged counter parts, the only strength they have is the ability to capture a city, which can be done by an amphibious promoted melee unit and honestly after a ranged barrage you probably dont even need amphibious

I belive there isnt a civ wich would be able to hold on to its UU's unique ability after it has been upgraded to something else, and I dont think that England is going to be an exception in this matter.

That said I think they should propably change the longbows ability.

Why? Because England obviously cannot promote the +1 extra range to its longbow unit because it allready has that promotion. England also cannot maintain its UU's unique ability after upgrading because neither cant anyone else, so that wouldnt be fair. If this is the case, then all the other civs actually can upgrade their crosbowman (longbowman) to get the +1 extra range and still maintain that promotion after the upgrade, but England would not be able to do that.

Or they might just remove the extra range promotion from all the units after upgrading to gatling/MG. Anyway, I still belive that England cannot maintain its UU's unique ability after upgrading, because neither cant anyone else.

America's minutemen when upgrades keep their "no terrain cost" benefit. I made sure to pump a few out despite not being in war so I could take advantage of this when they are upgraded.

I agree that melee ships need some love and some possible rethinking.

Ignoring UUs, the Trireme is fine (maybe a little weak), the same with the galleass. The renaissance/medieval is when it starts becoming odd and it is mainly the caravel I think is bit odd.

I'm fine with it not being very strong as it is more of a scout but then why is it melee? Either it needs to be something like a glass cannon where it is fast and has good offensive, or it needs to be ranged in my opinion. I imagine navies where the ranged ships are lighter and provide support and some weakening barrages as the melee ships which are stronger roll in and finish the job but I guess that is just my own opinion. Some people (and reality) probably favors the fact that the "big guns" are ranged while the weaker ones are fast and get in close.

The frigate is fine in my opinion although if you refer to my previous paragraph I'm thinking maybe it should become the new melee ship instead of caravels. I don't remember where privateers come into play, but if they are about the same time as frigates that opens an interesting scenario.

I think then than caravels could be scouts with weak range, frigates your main range, and privateers your melee. However privateers are supposed to be somewhat glass cannon like and sneaky as far as I am able to tell with the capturing units and whatnot, so this may make them lose their flavor.

I love the ironclad but I honestly think it doesn't fit in very well with the progression. Perhaps it should be an upgrade for the privateer? Basically we have a unit that is supposed to be very tough for its tech level. I am quite ok with with it being melee and I love the coastal bonus/ocean penalty it has. The problem is where it does it fit in? The caravel which is melee logically upgrades into the iron clad, but even if we ignore my earlier points, the caravel is basically a light scout that does melee, while the ironclad is a slow (outside of coast) tanky unit. It just seems odd. You can have the frigate upgrade into the iron clad, but then it turns into a melee unit (which may be ok if we changed the caravel to range and the frigate to melee) but then you are left without a deep sea tank except the privateer, which isn't really a tank.

The problem basically isn't too much different in the modern era with battleships, submarines, carriers, and destroyers. Refer to my comment about big guns to see how I feel about ranged and melee. The problem here is that we basically have battleships as ranged, destroyers as melee/scout/support (interception) hybrids, submarines as ranged glass cannons, and carriers as support (depending on the aircraft obviously). Before we even discuss the individual units I think most of us can agree we need a ranged, a melee, and a support. The others are fun and important, but they aren't essential and this era is tricky. Let's start with the battleship:

I think the battleship works pretty well as it is being ranged. The problem arises when if we try to change other units like the destroyer, we are left without a melee and then I would say this unit makes the most logical melee choice, but then again the big guns are begging to be use for bombardment.

I like destroyers, but once again I think it is a bit odd they are melee. I think their role of submarine hunter and interception support is great, but aren't support units usually either scouting or in the back, not going into melee?

I LOVE submarines! I think they are implemented quite well and there really isn't much I would change about them except perhaps making them a bit weaker. Their ranged attack is ok, but I think if you find a submarine you should be able to kill it pretty easily. That being said, I sometimes think 3 range for a sub is too much but taking it to 2 might be overkill. Either keep it 3 and nerf the ranged just a hair and the strength a little, or make it 2 and keep the sub the way it is.

The carrier really doesn't need much explaining in my opinion. Obviously you make it what you want it to be, depending on your aircraft and I can't think of anything to add to this. I think it might be interesting to give them interception (most carriers are equipped with that sort of weaponry) but then a fleet with a destroyer, a carrier, and a just 1 fighter not to mention 3, is pretty much untouchable from air (assuming fairly equal numbers). So while the idea might fit, if we were to do that the destroyer would need to lose its interception. I personally think that would work well and better define the roles. The carrier could become more of a support, destroyer a melee sub hunter/scout, battleship your general range. and subs your anti-naval units.

Once you reach the atomic (I think?) age you add some more units to the mix and it almost gets convoluted. With all the previous units, you now have missile cruisers and nuclear subs. The problem is that units overlap, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it does make things a bit confusing.

The missile cruiser as an indirect ranged unit carrying missiles makes perfect sense. I think the interception almost makes it a little too strong, but I can see why it has it considering I imagine it carries SAMs. As a suggestion, I think maybe we should increase the missile count (5 perhaps?), maybe even you can buy missiles on the cruiser, but take away the ranged attack. It might make the unit a little underwhelming but I'm just trying to give each unit a defined role.

As for the nuclear sub, I don't really know what to do. Obviously it is much like the regular submarine and that is fine. That it carries missiles makes it overlap with the cruiser, but I at least see logically why it happens. Perhaps make it only carry ICBMs so you can stack your cruise missiles with the cruiser? Another problem is that is overlaps with the regular submarine. Obviously it is a bit stronger and can carry missiles, and the bonus against other subs is odd to me, but not a big deal, but then why do we have this as a separate unit instead of an upgrade? I propose making the regular submarine upgrade into this unit and I think that fixes this issue. (To be honest, this might already be the case and I just forgot!).

Bottom line: Even if nothing else changed, melee ships should receive a slight buff. My other suggestions I think make sense and would make the game have more direction, but there are also more pressing issues (such as the religion UI!).

So there you go, if you made it this far, congratulations on having an above average attention span and I hope we all can get some good discussion stemming from this!

i think a big hit to the ottomans was the trieme being melee over ranged. and Zerrigan i read everything you wrote, twice over actually lol.

I think pre-renaissance ships are underwelming, the trieme more underwhelming then the galleass at least the galleass could just pick off ranged on the coast. I think the problem with the melee ships is three-fold. 1)that they were changed to melee instead of adding in melee ships. 2) they didn't recieve a damage bonus. 3) Ranged ships aren't 1 shot so they can be sort of tanky while doing massive damage to melee ships.

America's minutemen when upgrades keep their "no terrain cost" benefit. I made sure to pump a few out despite not being in war so I could take advantage of this when they are upgraded.

You're replying to a post made in April, a very uninformed post.


The English Longbowman do keep their +1 range benefit when upgrading. Gatling Guns and Machineguns upgraded from Longbowman have 2 range.

There shouldn't be anything more that needs to be said. Unit promotions are kept when upgrading, unit abilities (stuff like ignores terrain cost, etc.) are not kept. <--- that last bolded stuff is all IIRC.

As far as the new ranged units (land), is anyone else still sort of confused as to what to do with them? They are weaker than melee, but basically have to move into melee range to hit enemies which leaves them open to attacks that a melee unit could better handle. Why not use a melee? Of course you if you can surround with the range that is fine, but that is an ideal situation. The only big use I can find for them is helping in taking cities as they can help wear it down without being attacked. Just bring 1 or 2 infantry along and let your arty and guns wear the city down. Unfortunately the guns are so weak (compared to infantry) that they get killed pretty easily.

I don't know how much this would change the game, but I think gatling guns and machine guns should keep the 2 range. If this happened and the british range upgrade still transferred we might have problems, but that is easily correctable. Thought on this, or am I just using these units in the wrong way?

Edit: I guess I should note the weakness mainly applies to the gatling gun. The gatling works ok with riflemen, but once the great war infantry are out, it started to get outperformed. The machine gun is more balanced with the infantry in my opinion.

As far as the new ranged units (land), is anyone else still sort of confused as to what to do with them? They are weaker than melee, but basically have to move into melee range to hit enemies which leaves them open to attacks that a melee unit could better handle. Why not use a melee? Of course you if you can surround with the range that is fine, but that is an ideal situation. The only big use I can find for them is helping in taking cities as they can help wear it down without being attacked. Just bring 1 or 2 infantry along and let your arty and guns wear the city down. Unfortunately the guns are so weak (compared to infantry) that they get killed pretty easily.

I don't know how much this would change the game, but I think gatling guns and machine guns should keep the 2 range. If this happened and the british range upgrade still transferred we might have problems, but that is easily correctable. Thought on this, or am I just using these units in the wrong way?

I think ranged units have gone back to their traditional role as city/chokepoint defenders. The changes to garrisons help support this, the gattling/machine gun units mean that you have defenders through out all eras. I guess the -25% to cities is to help with pre-mathmatics sieges but idk.

I think the range of machine guns should indeed be 2 tiles it does defeat the purpose of being ranged if you can only attack 1 tile unless you are extremely effective against units that melee

actually i've said i like the privateers(to make matters worse it's in the post above yours) but i dont believe they are on the galley -> Trieme -> caravel -> destroyer path, so the ottomans can't upgrade to them which is what we were talking about.

and I was comparing melee and ranged ships of the same era, i cant help that one comes at the beginning of an era and another comes at the end. Triemes are the pre-caravel (renaissance era) melee ship and the ranged counter-part being the galleass. should i compare the medieval era galleass to the renaissance era caravel?

even if you think its unfair at that point, when Renaissance hits you have a caravel as the strongest upgradable melee ship in the game compared to the frigate, the strongest upgradable renaissance era ranged ship.

melee ships are too weak compared to their ranged counter parts, the only strength they have is the ability to capture a city, which can be done by an amphibious promoted melee unit and honestly after a ranged barrage you probably dont even need amphibious

Ok, if this is true, the upgrade path for triremes is a bit odd and the gap between caravels and destroyers is too big.

So if anything, the caravel is the weak spot here, not melee ships in general (you said melee ships are useless from start to finish and again, that's plain wrong).
Privateer has many uses and the iron-clad is extremely strong now (can cross the ocean, double movement in coastal tiles and +33% attack against cities + two siege promotions available).

Edit: By the way, doesn't the caravel upgrade to the iron-clad?

Gatling guns are fine you are forgetting they also have combat strength equal to their range so they can stand in the frontline without getting annhilated.

Man Ships of the line got buffed in G and K. They now have 5 or 20% more combat strength and 7, 25%, ranged, and Englands extra movement. Add in 15 less hammers and thats a pretty decent unit especially with navies being more useful.

Melee ships do need some love. the problem is their job is to hit cities which have been so massively buffed its hard to make melee strong enough to really threaten them without breaking naval combat. They should allow melee ships to move after attack so you can avoid return fire and gang up on cities. That would increase their power significantly.

Yes the caravel upgrades to the Ironclad, which can now enter ocean tiles though it only has 3 movement there. It gets double movement in coastal regions though and an extra 33% bonus against cities which means Ironclads may ACTUALLY be useful for once.

Gatling guns are fine you are forgetting they also have combat strength equal to their range so they can stand in the frontline without getting annhilated.

Man Ships of the line got buffed in G and K. They now have 5 or 20% more combat strength and 7, 25%, ranged, and Englands extra movement. Add in 15 less hammers and thats a pretty decent unit especially with navies being more useful.

Melee ships do need some love. the problem is their job is to hit cities which have been so massively buffed its hard to make melee strong enough to really threaten them without breaking naval combat. They should allow melee ships to move after attack so you can avoid return fire and gang up on cities. That would increase their power significantly.

Yes the caravel upgrades to the Ironclad, which can now enter ocean tiles though it only has 3 movement there. It gets double movement in coastal regions though and an extra 33% bonus against cities which means Ironclads may ACTUALLY be useful for once.

Trust me, two iron clads with two frigates as support cut through cities like butter if your tech rate was decent enough.

A minor point is that its mainly early melee which stinks if I read it right, and well they were bad in vanilla and are definitely more powerful against cities. With siege being so necessary against walled cities coastal cities with less room for siege can be annoying. Melee ships can play a decent support role there and become much stronger later.

As far as the new ranged units (land), is anyone else still sort of confused as to what to do with them? They are weaker than melee, but basically have to move into melee range to hit enemies which leaves them open to attacks that a melee unit could better handle. Why not use a melee? Of course you if you can surround with the range that is fine, but that is an ideal situation. The only big use I can find for them is helping in taking cities as they can help wear it down without being attacked. Just bring 1 or 2 infantry along and let your arty and guns wear the city down. Unfortunately the guns are so weak (compared to infantry) that they get killed pretty easily.

I don't know how much this would change the game, but I think gatling guns and machine guns should keep the 2 range. If this happened and the british range upgrade still transferred we might have problems, but that is easily correctable. Thought on this, or am I just using these units in the wrong way?

Edit: I guess I should note the weakness mainly applies to the gatling gun. The gatling works ok with riflemen, but once the great war infantry are out, it started to get outperformed. The machine gun is more balanced with the infantry in my opinion.

Great War Infantry comes an era later than Gatling Guns, of course Gatlings get outperformed at that point in time.

How hard is it now to take a city in a very foresty/hilly area early game? I'd imagine with the increased need to siege it would be incredibly hard.

Cities in rough terrain are really hard to take. It took me over ten turns to take a size 6, wall less Polynesian city withonly a maori and composite bowman in support. He went tradition though.

4 African Forest Elephants 3 catapults and reinforcments were barely enoguh. Lost multiple units and multiple survivors were badly damaged.