Are you really in favour of uniques ?

"Now, you could still try to ***************roleplay************** a really mighty civilization like the Roman Empire, because you have learned some stuff about them in reality, and would love to accomplish, or see if you can, what they've done in reality. Or possibly changing History by losing against Carthage ! (unless you picked Carthage to beat Rome )"

I get what you are saying, but this entire argument is for "roleplay". If you want roleplay, play on emperor or below.

I get your idea of modeling a custom civ, essentially, around the terrain. That you spawn at but again what's the point of more civs if they all play the exact same?

I think your lobbying for a different game entirely. It could be an interesting but it's a different game altogether. Because your cultivating a civ from scratch when most the civs are civs we look back at and want to play to their perceived strengths. For example what's the point of playing as Mongolia with no war advantages? It would be odd and it would be Mongolia in name only.

Click to expand...

Well they wouldn't need be exactly the same, rather you could start as a "lesser tribe" and then different circumstances could lead to different culture's ingame that become some recognizable civilization . So maybe you could "become" Arabia or Germany or Mongolia etc. having started as a more generic "tribe". Lets say when the game starts you pick a "lesser tribe", you could pick out of a long list such things like the Nervi or the Samaritans or Picti etc, these tribes would have few uniqueness to it other than the terrain they would start out in, lets say you pick the Nabateans and you start out in the dessert to later become maybe Arabia if you kept to the dessert, Marocco if you have desserts and mountains, egypt or Songhai if you have desserts and rivers, more or less you'd come to the point that developing technoligy and specialized for specific terrain would make you become a civilization as you had developed the prerequist tech, also because if you lived in the dessert you'd likely model youre units to use camels for ex. And becoming such a civilization would give added bonusses. And if you wanted to become Mongolia, well then you'd just need to pick a tribe that starts on the plains like say the merkites, and become used to living there, then that would make technoligy for that "biome" cheaper and technoligy that makes better use of it easier to master, or for that same matter eveloping units that are good on that terrain, also due to the specefic resources around. But say you migrate out more to other types of terrain, that you might become the Mughal empire later rather than Mongols, and would develop more empire wide buffing techs than so much for specific terrain while stil retaining some of youre homeland heritage.

The key with that terrain is to have a sort of lines of technoligy that many other civs are unlikely to follow because it would be too costly when not living in that sort of terrain. For ex. you have a tech tree for mountain/hilly terrain, a coastal tech tree, a dessert tech tree, a jungle tech tree, plains tech tree, etc. All these would unlock various units and buildings or wonders who would be more at home in that area. That doesn't mean that all techs are related to terrain afcourse, no'r that civilizations would need to limit themselfs to one type of terrain. However, size and types of terrain and how well they master it would define a lot of their uniqueness, or say lack thereof and maybe therefore being more "empire focussed". Combinations could aslo be made, it's more a matter then of either specializing on one's home turf (like say Dutch would do with their limited terrain) or focussing more on technoligy that buffs a whole empire regardless of the various terrain city's come in, which might all be dependant on what situation the player finds himself in.


But besides that, other factos should add to the uniqueness of a civilization like religion, politics, influences from neighbours. It's just that at a start terrain would typicly determine much of the culture and uniqueness of a civilization as it did historicly and it would for ex. reflect trough military units that maybe are very good at the home turf but uneffective outside of it.

What are you role playing though? The music score? The colors? The city name? I mean while playing, that's all that would seem like the civ. The game play itself would be identical to every other civ. So how are you role playing?

Naokaukodem said:

...

Click to expand...

So how uniques prevent you from doing this roleplay exactly ?

Naokaukodem said:

I understand that having no uniques would disminish the point of playing other civs. However, it might disminish it less than you think, because it would bring free hands with it.


Example : you are american and you would love to play America. Unfortunatelly, America ingame is kinda unattractive. Its uniques show marginal or side uses, or come late with few impact on gameplay. Therefore, you pick another one. Maybe a better one. In the end, you never pick America.

Click to expand...

That's really a matter of deciding what you want out of your game though. If you really want to play America, just do so. Drop down a difficulty level, if you think it hurts you too much -> there you go.

Naokaukodem said:

Without uniques, it would for sure be your first pick.

Click to expand...

Sure, but then you'd not have any initiative to play other Civs for anything other than "being someone else".

Naokaukodem said:

Therefore, you could roleplay your favorite civ, the one you have the most affinities with. Everything you know about this country in reality, and that's a lot (more than the other countries at least), would enter in reasonnance with the game. You may remark how the city names are correct, you may remark your neighbours that are correct, although on a possibly totally different geographical configuration : this, is recreating History ! It would never have the same impact with another civilization, whatever is the number of its uniques, especially without culturally linked starting locations.

Click to expand...

And this is relevant how exactly? If you want to play your Civ... just play it. Or modify their bonuses to something you enjoy.

The whole thing seems to come down to: "I would like to do all of this, but for whatever reason I also feel forced to take the best Civ available!". You are not. Decide what you want and go for it.

kzcosme said:

CIV BE was criticized by many due to the little flavor in each civilization, as far as I read.

In my opinion, this kind of flavor keeps the replayability, it is the motive I played roughly 1000 hours so far.

Click to expand...

100% agreed. I tried Civ:BE and quit after 2 or 3 games to come back to Civ5. Main reason is because BE is so bland. If I can't tell the difference between the different factions then what's the point.

brasswire said:

100% agreed. I tried Civ:BE and quit after 2 or 3 games to come back to Civ5. Main reason is because BE is so bland. If I can't tell the difference between the different factions then what's the point.

Click to expand...

I think what the BE devs failed to mention is that shortly before someone won science victory, another civ had dominant culture of 95% of the world.

I'm 100 % FOR uniques, imbalances and all. In fact, I think the fact that many uniques are severely imbalanced adds a lot of dynamics to the game and this is what secures replayability. For instance, if you start right next to Huns, you know you really need to watch your steps during Ancient and Classical era less they will descent on you with battering rams and horse archers and screw you over; if you start next to Shaka, you know you need to contain him before Medieval era, etc. Sure some civs got the short end of the stick, but making things 100 % equal is not really realistic.

kaspergm said:

I'm 100 % FOR uniques, imbalances and all. In fact, I think the fact that many uniques are severely imbalanced adds a lot of dynamics to the game and this is what secures replayability. For instance, if you start right next to Huns, you know you really need to watch your steps during Ancient and Classical era less they will descent on you with battering rams and horse archers and screw you over; if you start next to Shaka, you know you need to contain him before Medieval era, etc. Sure some civs got the short end of the stick, but making things 100 % equal is not really realistic.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that. Also, the "domminions" series of games could speak for this argument. The dominions series is so complex in just how you can combine all sort of specialty's that player strategy's are often very unexpected and turn out to be either OP or underpowered. One thing about this game is that there are just so many little modifiers and tricks, it's kinda hard to learn to know all the things you could do with this game because there is just (deliberatly) practicly too much,. you'd think game the developers don't even spend time on balancing because thats not the intention of the game, the intention is that there is such a load of ways in which you can play the game that even if you woudl find a strategy that is OP, there is no guarantee that someone else might not find a trick that is even more op and makes the previous strategy weak in comparison.

Would be interesting to have a more Spore-like system where benefits accumulate over time from playing a certain way (e.g. lots of fighting in forests means units better in forest).
But would the AI be able to take advantage of such a system? And as others have pointed out this would change the game significantly, almost to the point where it isn't really a Civ game anymore.

Now it's funnny how people seem to think all suddenly that imbalance is good, sounds kinda an exception just as mine though.

OnceAKing said:

What are you role playing though? The music score? The colors? The city name? I mean while playing, that's all that would seem like the civ. The game play itself would be identical to every other civ. So how are you role playing?

Click to expand...

You roleplay with the affinities you have of the civ in the reality. The game don't need to mimic it, it would always fail anyway (every person is different and has different perceptions)

Culturally linked starting locations (your neighbouring civs are the ones your civ has in reality, with according city names) may help also.

Acken said:

So how uniques prevent you from doing this roleplay exactly ?

Click to expand...

1) By linking themselves to gameplay.

You will choose a civ according to its uniques.

2) By being just side aspects of a country therefore inconsistent.

Ryika said:

That's really a matter of deciding what you want out of your game though. If you really want to play America, just do so. Drop down a difficulty level, if you think it hurts you too much -> there you go.

Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily speaking for myself. As a proof, I'm french, not american.

Ryika said:

Sure, but then you'd not have any initiative to play other Civs for anything other than "being someone else".

Click to expand...

That's the concept of roleplaying.

Ryika said:

And this is relevant how exactly? If you want to play your Civ... just play it. Or modify their bonuses to something you enjoy.

The whole thing seems to come down to: "I would like to do all of this, but for whatever reason I also feel forced to take the best Civ available!". You are not. Decide what you want and go for it.

Click to expand...

The thing is I don't want to pick my country. I won't roleplay against all odds, the lack of CLSL (culturally linked starting location) would throw everything down anyway.

The game has a design. I'm compelled to it. Also, the lack of CLSL is probably due to uniques : why to start near the same civs everytimes when they have the same specificities ? It would hurt the introduced diversity. If AIs were programmed to adapt only, unlike behaving always in the same general way, it would be a lot better too, AIs would seem less stupid and more dangerous.

Lexicus said:

Would be interesting to have a more Spore-like system where benefits accumulate over time from playing a certain way (e.g. lots of fighting in forests means units better in forest).
But would the AI be able to take advantage of such a system? And as others have pointed out this would change the game significantly, almost to the point where it isn't really a Civ game anymore.

Click to expand...

you don't need to change much with the current civ engine as it is to reach goals like that, as it is it woudn't be too hard to give units terrain specific bonusses for experience gained in fighting in such terrain. I think it would not be outside the abbilety's of the engine as it is to for ex. have terrain specific tech trees that would need be unlocked by having either gained so much experience in fighting in that terrain or having that much of that specific type of terrain within one's borders. Those specific tech tree's could then unlock buildings, wonders or units that are more suited for it.

The Ai would be dissuaded from researching terrain specific techs it doesn't need by either making them locked to them if they don't have many of those tiles or atleast making terrain techs of which they have many tiles of much cheaper to research.

Depending on one's strategy then one could choose to focus one one specific terrain tech tree or multiple depending on the size and terrain diversity of civilization. Focussing more on one would unlock more powerfull buffs for that specific terrain but size should matter and big empire's with diverse spanning regions indeed should have acces to various sort of special troops whereas a civ that stuck to it's own area might find it difficult to go fight in very different terrain.

You're aware that there are mods for CLSL right ?

Also I stil don't see why you can't roleplay as if you had no uniques. It's as if you have this mentality that somehow youre forced to play a certain way or pick a certain civ. You really aren't.

apart from india/venice/iroquois, any other civ can play normally as a vanilla civ, so you're not forced into any playstyle or prejudice for/against any civ.

I'm not sure what you mean by "uniques" in the civ, if it means the UA, UU, UB then I'm all for having them. it's arguably the best part of the game, and makes each civ interesting to play. if you're so hardcore into roleplaying, you can always rename your cities/units to whatever you want and play it that way.

Acken said:

You're aware that there are mods for CLSL right ?

Also I stil don't see why you can't roleplay as if you had no uniques. It's as if you have this mentality that somehow youre forced to play a certain way or pick a certain civ. You really aren't.

Click to expand...

Sessy said:

apart from india/venice/iroquois, any other civ can play normally as a vanilla civ, so you're not forced into any playstyle or prejudice for/against any civ.

I'm not sure what you mean by "uniques" in the civ, if it means the UA, UU, UB then I'm all for having them. it's arguably the best part of the game, and makes each civ interesting to play. if you're so hardcore into roleplaying, you can always rename your cities/units to whatever you want and play it that way.

Click to expand...

"Role-play"? This is a forum for Civilization, not Dungeons & Dragons. I love when folks try to use that term it like it's the ultimate lifehack. Find a fly in your soup? Don't call the waiter over. Rather, role-play that it's not there. Better yet, RP that it's dee-lish-us. Yum-yum!

Perhaps when the battering rams and siege towers roll up to his capital, the OP should simply role-play that they're still spearmen and catapults. When Venice and Austria start gobbling up city-states, he should RP that they sent armies over to conquer them.

What the OP suggests (quite plainly, I'd say) is not that the uniques simply be stripped out, but rather that suitable alternatives should exist. I tend to agree. Very few uniques are actually all that unique at all. Battering rams, siege towers, and diplomatic marriages all spring to mind right away.

The options made available in the later expansions really drive home a better design approach, because they allow players a suite of customization options. I've played many games where my pantheon belief played a much larger part in my strategy than the unique ability of my civilization. Haven't you?

steveg700 said:

"Role-play"? This is a forum for Civilization, not Dungeons & Dragons. I love when folks try to use that term it like it's the ultimate lifehack. Find a fly in your soup? Don't call the waiter over. Rather, role-play that it's not there. Better yet, RP that it's dee-lish-us. Yum-yum!

Perhaps when the battering rams and siege towers roll up to his capital, the OP should simply role-play that they're still spearmen and catapults. When Venice and Austria start gobbling up city-states, he should RP that they sent armies over to conquer them.

What the OP suggests (quite plainly, I'd say) is not that the uniques simply be stripped out, but rather that suitable alternatives should exist. I tend to agree. Very few uniques are actually all that unique at all. Battering rams, siege towers, and diplomatic marriages all spring to mind right away.

The options made available in the later expansions really drive home a better design approach, because they allow players a suite of customization options. I've played many games where my pantheon belief played a much larger part in my strategy than the unique ability of my civilization. Haven't you?

Click to expand...

I disagree with your assertion that role playing shouldn't be considered. Some people like the sandbox aspect of the game, in a sense there's not a franchise quite like it, in terms of being a competely different world every time you play it.

I just think the OP is proposing a new game and maybe a spin off but the game he wants is not civ.

Here's where we can find consensus. A player could "grow" into that Civ gradually and maybe even pick and choose between a menu of abilities for that civ. For instance the problem with America is that while it has strong ties to a domination civ, in real life it can also be considered cultural and or scientific. So say we could choose between a science UA or a domination UA that could be awesome but where I differ to the op is that All of America's options should be unique to America and not like any other civ.

And then you just get CivBE situation, where pick and chosing your civ bonuses killed the game replayability.

Right.. civilization is supposed to be a strategy. Im wondering how you folks got to talk about role play games from a strategy game that civilization is.

Naokaukodem said:

You roleplay with the affinities you have of the civ in the reality. The game don't need to mimic it, it would always fail anyway (every person is different and has different perceptions)

Culturally linked starting locations (your neighbouring civs are the ones your civ has in reality, with according city names) may help also.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you just want to play a different game. Europa Universalis might be close to what you're looking for. All the empires start in their proper locations, with a strength relative to their actual historical strength at the time, and you can pick and choose your nation's special advantages as the game progresses.

reddishrecue said:

Right.. civilization is supposed to be a strategy. Im wondering how you folks got to talk about role play games from a strategy game that civilization is.

Click to expand...

There a lot of strategy games that are far more hard core strategy than some much about things like aesthetical ellements and "immersion" like with Civilization. I wouldn't use the word role play, but to say that the civilization series can go withought immersion and an aesthetical presentation that can please a broad audience would be quite incorrect imho.

See, a hard core game of strategy nends not really much more than numbers, in truth you can do away with practicly all the graphical elements. And there are plenty of complex strategy games out there that are far more hard core and build out of numbers and few graphics than the civilization franchise is, a good ex. would be dwarf fortress for those who know it.

But the civilization franchise needs to sell millions each new installment, and for that they need in part to be able to offer the player some form of immersion, hardcore strategy games have an audiance but will not sell beyond a certain number, if you need the broad mass you needs a more rounded off product.
immersion meaning it must draw the player in its world, if the player is feeling that all he is doing is competively manipulating numbers then that will decrease the interrest for people who want to feel drawn into the setting of a game world. Sure, for those who simply want to compete versus another or see how much difficulty they can beat then the challenge of the number game can be interresting by itself, but rest assure that there are loads of people playing civilization on the lowest levels just for fun too.