What Civs' Unique Abilites would you like to see changed?

For Rome...

Glory of Rome: +3 production in the capital; aqueducts and coliseums build in half the time and are maintenance free.

Little more flavorful and doesn't deadlock your capital into cranking out buildings for your other cities. The second part reflects the fact that the Romans usually brought both of those buildings with them wherever they went.

ferretbacon said:

For Rome...

Glory of Rome: +3 production in the capital; aqueducts and coliseums build in half the time and are maintenance free.

Little more flavorful and doesn't deadlock your capital into cranking out buildings for your other cities. The second part reflects the fact that the Romans usually brought both of those buildings with them wherever they went.

Click to expand...

Abilities should change the gameplay of a civ, not just be a simple boost.

VermelhoRed said:

Abilities should change the gameplay of a civ, not just be a simple boost.

Click to expand...

That would change how you play as Rome; it would create an incentive to construct both a coliseum and an aqueduct in each city due to the fact that they build quick and cost nothing.

As a result of this, you'd get an easy +2 happiness and a growth bonus in each city, which would in turn contribute to taking particular policies in order to maximize the advantages those two would confer.

The production bonus in Rome would help your capital to become a powerhouse, churning out Wonders, developmental buildings, and military units each in turn. This UA is generally appropriate for the civilization is represents, and would encourage an emulation of the Roman Empire through the play-style it promotes.

Anyway, there are other UAs that are "simple boosts." The forthcoming Zulu UA is one such example. I think you're underestimating such UAs. They encourage a certain type of game-play just as much as the UAs of Spain or Austria, which I suppose are examples of UAs you'd recommend.

DonStamos said:

I'd like to see India's UA look a little something like this:

Gain +1 culture for each follower of a religion (or two followers). Unhappiness from population is halved.

It keeps the high population flavor that the developers wanted, and plays well with the new culture system: India is the birthplace of at least four religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism) and has always had its own VERY resilient culture. So I figured why not use the religion system to "buff" India's culture defense? Trying to out-tourism an India with 3-4 religions, or 1 or 2 big religions would be incredibly difficult - and it doesn't really alter how India could be played, since you wouldn't have to found the religions yourself.

Click to expand...

This would alter how India plays pretty substantively, I'd think.

The UA for Rome is both a substantial boost in hammers and promotes an expansionist playstyle which represents the civ historically to some extent.

I can see how the UA could detract from your desire to build Wonders in the Capital, but I usually go for Petra in my second city or at least a really nice growth and production area should a decent Petra location not be available and build that city very tall as well. This largely mitigates not building wonders in the Capital and a good Petra city can eclipse your Capital completely making it the goto city for Wonders anyways.

ferretbacon said:

That would change how you play as Rome; it would create an incentive to construct both a coliseum and an aqueduct in each city due to the fact that they build quick and cost nothing.

As a result of this, you'd get an easy +2 happiness and a growth bonus in each city, which would in turn contribute to taking particular policies in order to maximize the advantages those two would confer.

The production bonus in Rome would help your capital to become a powerhouse, churning out Wonders, developmental buildings, and military units each in turn. This UA is generally appropriate for the civilization is represents, and would encourage an emulation of the Roman Empire through the play-style it promotes.

Anyway, there are other UAs that are "simple boosts." The forthcoming Zulu UA is one such example. I think you're underestimating such UAs. They encourage a certain type of game-play just as much as the UAs of Spain or Austria, which I suppose are examples of UAs you'd recommend.

Click to expand...

But people already build aqueducts and coliseums in every city. Now if it were something like cheaper gardens, then it would be a specialization. But as it is, your Rome just does what other civs do, only they do it better.

VermelhoRed said:

But people already build aqueducts and coliseums in every city. Now if it were something like cheaper gardens, then it would be a specialization. But as it is, your Rome just does what other civs do, only they do it better.

Click to expand...

...

No kidding. A UA that helps a civ do something better?

I'll let you inform Catherine, Elizabeth, Genghis, Ramesses, et al. that their UAs aren't valid since, you know, they're just stat increases that don't result in substantive gameplay changes. I was building some wonders anyway, so who needs Egypt's production bonus? I was going to build cavalry and attack my CS neighbor, so why would playing as Mongolia help me there?



Fine though. If you want a unique gameplay element, here you go:

Glory of Rome: +1 production in the capital for each city you control.

That one promotes expansion through any means, militaristic or settling your own cities, which Rome definitely did. It also makes Rome actually glorious, as the more you conquer, the more powerful Rome becomes. This also parallels history. As Rome conquered, Rome prospered.

ferretbacon said:

...

No kidding. A UA that helps a civ do something better?

I'll let you inform Catherine, Elizabeth, Genghis, Ramesses, et al. that their UAs aren't valid since, you know, they're just stat increases that don't result in substantive gameplay changes. I was building some wonders anyway, so who needs Egypt's production bonus? I was going to build cavalry and attack my CS neighbor, so why would playing as Mongolia help me there?

Click to expand...

ferretbacon said:

The production bonus in Rome would help your capital to become a powerhouse, churning out Wonders, developmental buildings, and military units each in turn. This UA is generally appropriate for the civilization is represents, and would encourage an emulation of the Roman Empire through the play-style it promotes.

Anyway, there are other UAs that are "simple boosts." The forthcoming Zulu UA is one such example. I think you're underestimating such UAs. They encourage a certain type of game-play just as much as the UAs of Spain or Austria, which I suppose are examples of UAs you'd recommend.

Click to expand...

I think you've hit the nail on the head, but maybe it's just not apparent. As you point out, a flat production boost means faster wonders, faster buildings, faster units...faster everything. In that respect, it doesn't aggressively encourage a certain type of gameplay, but rather passively facilitates them all. It certainly doesn't promote the kind of aggressive change in gameplay as Spain, which offers a heavy risk/reward venture.

Some of the civ's you mention are more geared towards less internalized gameplay. Russia encourages aggressive competition to settle strategic resources. Mongolia has players specifically exploiting city-states and using mounted units and great generals in a a pretty special way.

I think you and others made a good case against Rome's ability for its obtuseness, but again the suggested replacement isn't so much a departure as it is an optimization.

I can see how the UA could detract from your desire to build Wonders in the Capital, but I usually go for Petra in my second city or at least a really nice growth and production area should a decent Petra location not be available and build that city very tall as well. This largely mitigates not building wonders in the Capital and a good Petra city can eclipse your Capital completely making it the goto city for Wonders anyways.

Click to expand...

While building normal wonders isn't facilitated by Rome's ability, it definitely promotes building national wonders. And that, at least, is pretty thematic for Rome. I wouldn't mind seeing an entire focus around National Wonders for them.

Here's my short list:

India: Reason is already stated. The faction is too rigid, encouraging tall empires and discouraging broad ones.

Denmark: I'd recommend 4x gold increase from pillaging. I was close to saying it should have the Songhai ability as well.

I think with India, it's pretty cut-and-dried: they should be a top-notch religion civ. Culture, happiness, and growth are simply an extension of that.

I'm not the first person to state it in this thread, but allowing it to accrue multiple pantheons is a big step in the right direction, both in terms of capturing the theme and providing a strategic roadmap.

But just proposing a UA really doesn't cut it IMO. Chop out the elephants and forts, and make the Mughals a civ unto themselves. Theyr're pretty worthy, and distinct from India's overall history. In a certain sense, having the Mughals rolled up into India is like giving a South-American civ conquistadors.

Moraiwe said:

As silly a suggestion as this is, what bothers me most about it is that Krakatoa isn't even near Polynesia.

Click to expand...

I think the Polynesian civilization was supposed to encompass basically all of the Pacific islands. After all, their leader was the king of Hawaii.

ferretbacon said:

...

No kidding. A UA that helps a civ do something better?

I'll let you inform Catherine, Elizabeth, Genghis, Ramesses, et al. that their UAs aren't valid since, you know, they're just stat increases that don't result in substantive gameplay changes. I was building some wonders anyway, so who needs Egypt's production bonus? I was going to build cavalry and attack my CS neighbor, so why would playing as Mongolia help me there?

Click to expand...

Like I said before, giving cheaper gardens is different from giving cheaper aqueducts.
If you give a civ a boost to wonder production, suddenly, they have an advantage in all wonder races. They'll prioritize a tech that leads to an useful wonder instead of a tech that leads to something else. They'll always have wonder-building in mind. Both an advantage and a gameplay change.
Genghis UA incentivates him to fight city-states, even in situations where, for other civs, it might be best to let them be. You wouldn't want to attack that CS with someone else, but now that you're Genghis, it'll be so much easier that attacking is worth it. An advantage and a gameplay change.
These are not the same as getting production bonus in your capital for free and getting cheaper aqueducts and coliseums.

ferretbacon said:

...
Fine though. If you want a unique gameplay element, here you go:

Glory of Rome: +1 production in the capital for each city you control.

That one promotes expansion through any means, militaristic or settling your own cities, which Rome definitely did. It also makes Rome actually glorious, as the more you conquer, the more powerful Rome becomes. This also parallels history. As Rome conquered, Rome prospered.

Click to expand...

Now this one is GREAT!! It's exactly what I'm talking about, an ability that you will have to make an effort to take advantage off, and that will promote an unique way of playing that fits a civ's history.

Uberfrog said:

Well, they gave that ability to the Celts' Pictish Warrior. What with the Holy Warriors belief, it would probably be too powerful if literally every Aztec unit gained faith for kills.

Click to expand...

Well, it could be nerfed slightly as follows:

UA: Shrines (and/or temples) produce bonus faith from unit kills. The more shrines (temples) you have, the bigger the faith bonus from kills.

Aussie.

Mrdarklight said:

I think the Polynesian civilization was supposed to encompass basically all of the Pacific islands. After all, their leader was the king of Hawaii.

Click to expand...

Yes, Hawaii is part of Polynesia. Krakatoa is nowhere near it, and not even in the pacific.

I just thought of a good improvement for Japan's UA:


Bushido: Units fight as though they were at full strength, even when damaged. Receive culture when one of your military units dies.


Explanation
I think this would reflect a lot of facets of Japan, namely:

-Seppuku. A unit's defeat could be seen as the leader's suicide, so as to maintain his honor. Culture boost appropriate.

-Shintoism. Culture from dead military units also reflects ancestor worship.

-Isolationism. The extra culture would help inure Japan to outside influence.

-With the new Kamikaze tenet in Autocracy, would give the Zero unit's death more significance.

-Would change the way a Japanese player goes about warfare. Would make it more likely for you to charge one last time even if defeat was guaranteed, in order to get the culture bonus. This would reinforce the idea of Bushido. I think Himeji Castle's quotation, appropriately, sums this philosophy up:

"Bushido is realized in the presence of death. This means choosing death whenever there is a choice between life and death. There is no other reasoning."

What do you think? I think this minor addendum would have major gameplay ramifications for Japan, both in terms of how one would play Japan, and in better reflecting the culture.

ferretbacon said:

I just thought of a good improvement for Japan's UA:

Bushido: Units fight as though they were at full strength, even when damaged. Receive culture when one of your military units dies.

Click to expand...

That's just fantastic . To buff it a little bit,the experiencie level tier of the unit can multiply the ammount of received .

ferretbacon said:

Bushido: Units fight as though they were at full strength, even when damaged. Receive culture when one of your military units dies.

Click to expand...

Very good, sir. To gain something from the units demise makes Japan a lot more interesting (and maybe even more of a challenge, when playing against de AI)

ferretbacon said:

I just thought of a good improvement for Japan's UA:


Bushido: Units fight as though they were at full strength, even when damaged. Receive culture when one of your military units dies.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree this idea is great. I doubt it would ever happen. Japan would be too overpowered and now has Montezuma's UA.

India HAS to be changed. I cannot believe it even go into the game in the first place. It's confusing, and promotes stagnation.

ImperialChaos said:

Yeah, I agree this idea is great. I doubt it would ever happen. Japan would be too overpowered and now has Montezuma's UA.

Click to expand...

... Not really? Montezuma gains culture for killing other units, Oda would receive culture when a unit of his dies - they're kinda the exact opposite of each other...

Personally, I dunno why Japan would need a buff - I haven't played as them yet (I don't usually like pure warmongering civilizations), but fighting against them as proved to be a challenge (when compared to fighting other civilizations, at least).

While the bonus culture would add flavor, I don't know if Japan needs it. But maybe a more warmongering player can give a more educated opinion.