Does the UU or UA make a civ?

I mentioned once that everyone should stop whining about England's lackluster UA, as it is backed up by 2 of the best UU's in the game, but then I also thought the same about china (whilst China's UA is slightly better than England's, its still kinda meh compared to others). But then after seeing some more posts, I though, doesn't this also apply to both America and Mongolia?

All four of these civs have some of the highest rated units, but the lowest rated abilities, but seem to have a quite positive overall reception. Also, although the abilities are a bit weak, they all synergies with the units (England's ships of the line get better, CKN can be backed up by generals, Minute men can see further so they don't march into traps, Genghis can kill city states for loot)

Conversely, some civs like Babylon and Byzantium have good abilities, but poor units and buildings. (backed up again by their average ratings)

So now I'm wondering if you guys prefer civs for their abilities or units/buildings/improvements. (personally I prefer units, like England's and Hollands)

UU's naturally only matter when you're going domination, with few exceptions (eg. Pathfinder) but are much more effective than any UA will be, as they are era specific, so they can be powerful without being OP.

Mongolia and Huns are perfect examples, as their UA's combined would still be subpar.
Good warmonger civs are driven by UU's
Assyria: Siege Tower
Huns: Ram/Horse Archer
Mongolia: Keshik/ Khan
China: Chu-Ko-Nu
England: Longbow/Ship of the Line
Ottomans: Janissary

However, for any other victory you're going to be counting on UA;

Babylon's only strength is more great scientists, but they're top tier.
Poland's UA is what makes it really good.
No one ever plays Venice or Greece for its UU's



So it depends on the victory I want to play

arand86 said:

UU's naturally only matter when you're going domination, with few exceptions (eg. Pathfinder) but are much more effective than any UA will be

Click to expand...

Cannot say I agree. To me, UU's are partly for flavor and partly to give incentive to mimic real-world examples. The number of Civs that have UU's which actually make a difference in a full domination game are few, and the number of UU's which have no practical place in a domination game are several. A blanket statement like that just doesn't work.

I have no preference as long as the Civ promotes variety.

The UU and UA are only as good as the map being played.

Some CIV's require a lot of sea play or jungles to work. Some have more generic advantages, and they are usually the ones considered to be the better Civ's.

Germany would suck on a no barbarian maps. Iroquis suck in deserts. England does suck in plains or pangea maps where there is not much action over the seas.

It depends. Some UUs are amazing, while others, particularly really early UUs like Mohawk warriors, become obsolete really fast.

I generally like the UAs more, but I'm also a peaceful player. I think UUs can be pretty amazing even in non domination victories though.

In the end it depends on the civ. Mongolia and England really need to take advantage of their UUs to have a good game, while Poland and Greece really don't. This could mean going for a domination victory, it could mean taking a lot of land in the eras their UUs are best in, or even just pillaging setting back computers, and getting awesome peace deals in the eras that they are in. Other UUs are just amazing for defensive purposes (get fewer units and a new building) or for upgrading them later to have a really awesome later game army (jaguars).