I would like to expect the civs veiled with 2UU

Merciorum said:
If they are a particularly warlike civ, sure, but otherwise no. Byzantium's 2 UUs still annoy me; they'd be better with a faith-producing building early-ish on. Maybe a basilica, a temple giving extra faith...
Click to expand...
Byzantine is one of my favorite civ even if the UA seems not to be stronge and its UU, GREEK FIRE as well as EARLY HORSE RIDER, influences the world more greatly than its buildings (Byzantine church may also be very famous but from my knowledge I just can recognize HIGIA SOPHIA:D). So I DO HOPE the improvement and development can be make in UU specially in CATAPHRACT, which should demonstrate its dominate status before Mediavel era.
 
Merciorum said:
If they are a particularly warlike civ, sure, but otherwise no. Byzantium's 2 UUs still annoy me; they'd be better with a faith-producing building early-ish on. Maybe a basilica, a temple giving extra faith...
Click to expand...

This. Rome, England, Mongolia, Germany are the only 2-UU Civs I wouldn't touch.

I'm glad that France are getting a UI instead of one of their UUs - it makes them so much more interesting and does a better job of reflecting French civilisation.
 
Ikael said:
Completely disagree with that. Most civilizations on civ 5 Vainilla had 2 UU, and hated that to bits:

- Makes for mor civwarmonger than anything
- They rarely, if ever, changes the way the game is playing. They add little flavour, me thinks
- They are temporal bonuses meant to be used in a very specific era, whereas buidings and UI last forever

So, no, thanks. I will gladly take Venice and hope for it to be the first civilization with two UB or UB + UI :p
Click to expand...

Civ with 2 UB is so creative and its just like India in civ 4
 
True_Candyman said:
I like the fact that every civ has at least one UU. That's a nice flavour touch that does give your military a much needed boost, even as a peaceful civ. It's much better for the long term flavour when they actually can pass on characteristics though, like the Inca slinger's retreat bonus.

I think two UB's could end up being as bland as two UU's really, as you don't see any noticeable change, it's all in the figures. Equally two UI's would just make clutter on your land. I really like the diversity provided by two of the 3, but i'm not a fan of getting too much of any of the three in one civ.

Saying that, there are exceptions. I do like England's combo, having a boat and a bowman is adequately different in feel for me. Equally America's UU's are different enough to stay under my flavour radar. I've never been fond of France's two melee unit UU's though, so i'm glad for a change there.

Equally, warmongering civs i think are better represented (often) with two UU's, Mongolia especially has been done epically with it's uniques. Greece and Rome i like for the concentrated era flavours.

Most of the rest of the civs turn out a little bland for me though. I find it difficult to keep my interest in civs like Denmark and the Ottomans where the bonus is also reflecting largely military purposes and then is supported by two military UU's.
Click to expand...
For me, the UU of Carthage means nothing.
 
GoodSarmatian said:
I pretty much hate civs with 2 UUs because it makes them look like they have only one instad of two traits. Even if a UU has apowerful promotion that carries over to upgraded units, it's still only really useful if you go to war, and many civs have UBs that are more useful than their UA.

I would like multiple UUs if they aren non-combat units. The Mongol Khan is quite interesting and it's a shame that there aren't any civilian unique great people. If Italy (or an Italian renaissance city state like Venice) was in the game they could have unique Great Artist types that double as Great Scientist, a new Silk Road civilization could have unique Caravans with better range and movement speed and some other advantage, or maybe an African or North American civ might have Settlers that can build improvments and defend themselves from early units.
Click to expand...
For Milan or Venice state, I can expect the combination of Italian Militia and Venice Great Merchant.
 
Merciorum said:
If they are a particularly warlike civ, sure, but otherwise no. Byzantium's 2 UUs still annoy me; they'd be better with a faith-producing building early-ish on. Maybe a basilica, a temple giving extra faith...
Click to expand...

This, so very much this. Remember the huge threads devoted to re-imaging some already existing civilizations? See a pattern repeated there? Few people, if any, would leave the whole two UU thing in place.

Reflecting the both sides of some civs (peacetime and wartime) makes for a more unique and flavourful experience, I think. Like this fellow forumer has pointed out, seeing war like civilizations like say, the Huns or Mongolia having two UU makes sense but... Bizantium? France? Come on the hell on.

And now that I think about it, I would love if Venetia would have a UB/UI + one civilizian UU replacing great merchants or great artists :D
 
Calouste said:
There are currently 34 civs in Civ5, 16 of them have two UUs. Is almost half of the civs not enough? I actually hope that they'll change some existing civs like we already know they have done with France, and that we'll end up with around 10 civs out of the 43 after BNW that have two UUs.
Click to expand...

I was going to start a thread on this but never did. I did the math for UU/UB/UI patterns and found something interesting.

The original vanilla game had more UB than UU (by two or by three if you count Babylon). However, the DLC skewed things because, in order to get your money's worth, they felt it necessary to give you something you can really see on the map - so a UU or a UI (none of the civs had a UB). That led to 2UU dominating.

This expansion is clearly trying to make up for that, but it's starting to create a UB imbalance.

Of the current 41 known civs:
2UU - 15
UB - 18
UI - 8

I suspect at least one of the remaining civs will have a UB out of an inability to think of something better. My hope is that, rather than converting some more 2UU civs to something else, they convert a UB civ to a UI civ. I agree that more 2UU civs aren't necessary, but I do think they add nice flavor as well.
 
I'm still sad that the Celts didn't get a stone circle UI instead of the Ceilidh Hall (even though it's actually not a terrible UB).
 
I'd like the exact opposite; I find UBs and especially UIs much more interesting.
 
Like most of the people in this thread, I'd be happy if they were moving away from the double UU civs. I've found that I tend to avoid playing them.
 
I actually like 2 UUs a lot. I prefer civs with two UUs to most civs that have a UB, which I find very dull most of the time. UIs are alos kinda interesting, but my personal preference are two UUs.
I believe that Venice, if included, will have two UUs and I think a possible Native American civ might have two UUs as well.
 
I prefer a variety. That means giving 2 UUs when possible to think of 2 or when gameplay suggests it's appropriate. What I don't want is abandoning 2 UU simply because some people are upset they aren't getting a building for a moderate economic advantage.
 
Thank you all guys for your reply above and also thank you for the statistics from Calouste and Louis XXIV. It looks like the number of civ with UB is over half and from the case of FRANCE, the game creators and programmers tend to focus on UI (or not). As a civ known as its economic and culture, the combination of UB/UI and UU (UU is EXTREMELY indispensable!!) is commonly acceptable. But in case of others, 2UU can reflect their aggressive motion during their golden age such as the dominating siege weapon and swordsman of Rome.

P.S. I remember that in civ4 in which ALL CIVS HAVE ONE UU AND ONE UB, the UB of SPAIN is the castle which can provide the siege weapon units built in this city with bonus experience. I would rather regard this as a UU (siege weapon unit built has promotion when it is built) for SPAIN.
 
Louis XXIV said:
I prefer a variety. That means giving 2 UUs when possible to think of 2 or when gameplay suggests it's appropriate. What I don't want is abandoning 2 UU simply because some people are upset they aren't getting a building for a moderate economic advantage.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I enjoy all combo's of unique elements, especially two UU civs.
 
It's hard to get too excited about a UB, because even if it's really good (like the Bazaar), it's still a completely invisible numerical multiplier somewhere.

Even the Mughal Fort, which replaces one of those rare buildings that does have a graphic, is entirely invisible. It's just the Walls of Babylon that aren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

foreverlost
Need help to advance to beating the AI Civs
Replies
4
Views
526
foreverlost
foreverlost
KayAU
Which are your favourite civs (in Vox Populi or vanilla)?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Darth Tribble
Darth Tribble
Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
Navelgazer
Favorite "Builder" Civs?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Glennarrison
G
F
Limited Passive XP Gain For Units
Replies
3
Views
260
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Top Bottom