PolyCast Episode 178: "Everything You Want to Talk About"

The main problem with most of the civs in Civ V is that their UA, UU and UB/UU are too limited in function. Consider, for example, the Germans and Denmark, who receive PURELY military bonuses. Compare them with the much more flexible Polynesians, Venice or Shoshone, for example, and we have a problem. Germany and Japan are both war-focused civs with bonuses that are not only inferior to that of the Zulu, but which offer no unique or engaging gameplay currently. Japan should have a cultural focus, and to some extent, Germany should have a cultural or industrial bonus of some type too.

Basically, in the pursuit of making each civ more "unique" in Civ 5, some civs have become one-trick ponies. Yes, they are great for certain victory types, but usually they are only good for ONE victory type, and they get boring easily. Here's to hoping Firaxis addresses that larger problem in the fall patch. Allowing civs to choose bonuses throughout the ages would be great. I know CivRev had that system (and though it was an otherwise terrible game), many appreciated the subtlety and usefulness of the bonuses.

Dan, the next you get private time with the dev's, here are a couple of questions I will pay you a bounty to ask:

First question: why does the player always have to be the initiator of trades for resources? I mean, if if the AI has some spare wine, and it see I have spare oranges, why can't it just come out and offer me an even trade of its own volition? What we get instead is this weird dance of requesting a DoF so that it can ask for a freebie, and then when it expires only then can we talk turkey (at which time it's far too late to trade luxes since the AI rarely has any to spare for very long).

Second question: from a design perspective, what was the point of the Huns as a civ? By that I mean having a civ that doesn't fit the normal standards for a civ makes sense if it presents something truly unique and challenges the player to play the game a different way (e.g. Venice), but the Huns basically do the opposite. They take an easy cheapshot way to play the game and augment the bejesus out of it. Their UA is essentially a weak version of Russia's, they horn in on the Mongols mounted archer act, and they have a battering ram, which is anything but a unique unit. Were they really writing up on a whiteboard "take early rushes to a new level" as a design goal? It feels more like they had some unfulfilled ambition that fizzled out somewhere along the line.

My personal theory is that the Huns were intended to be Assyria, sharing names with Babylon, but they hit a snag somewhere along the line.