England the new best Civ?

aziantuntija said:

You have not yet answered to my question. If that is such a big part to the game, then why Firaxis denied this “big part of the game” from at least two civs, England and Rome? That just does not make any sense.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's see if we are on the same page here: your main concern is that some civs have UUs that give benefits to later upgrades, while some civs don't, and you feel that this is unfair. Your argument is that, since not ALL civs have a UU with a benefit that carries over, it must be a mistake from Firaxis. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And I believe that most civs that don't have a carry-over UU have more significant boni that do last less time, and that this is usually enough to balance them.

You argue against me that the fact that they have a bigger boost is irrelevant, since to make use of it you have to be at war just as you unlock said UU, while for carry-over UUs, you can be at war any time afterwards.

My personal opinion is that, when you have a non-carry-over UU, you have to plan around it, so that you are indeed at war as you finish the beeline towards your UU, which most of the time is possible and very beneficial, even moreso since you will end up with extra cities and a highly promoted army for future invasions. The extra survivability and promotions of your army might even make up for the absent special promotions.

The only reason that would forbid to do this is if the UU comes very early, and you are isolated (small continents, for example). That sucks, but at least you don't have to spend hammers and money on an army for a long time, and you can beeline scientific techs safely.

Note: I am not against giving extra promotions to all UUs. What I'm trying to convey is that I believe it's not really necessary, and that the game is already quite balanced for most civs (there are exceptions, but the only one mentioned in this thread is England, whose only Unique Characteristic for 99% of the games is the Longbowmen, since Naval warfare is irrelevant). Plus, you get more diversity this way (in my opinion, which apparently differs from yours).

And there is a pretty big difference between having an "upgradable" extra promotion, and giving all your units that extra promotion. The first one requires a heavy investment early on (when you could have been building and buying more important things), and it disappears as the game goes on.

elprofesor said:

Ok, let's see if we are on the same page here: your main concern is that some civs have UUs that give benefits to later upgrades, while some civs don't, and you feel that this is unfair.

Click to expand...

Not that simple since there is also an AI concern in what I am saying. But pretty close actually, please read on.

elprofesor said:

My personal opinion is that, when you have a non-carry-over UU, you have to plan around it, so that you are indeed at war as you finish the beeline towards your UU, which most of the time is possible and very beneficial, even moreso since you will end up with extra cities and a highly promoted army for future invasions.

Click to expand...

That is actually a problem. One UU gives bonus right from the start trough out the game and the other UU (as you said it) in many cases forces you to wage war in order to take advantage of that current civs UU, otherwise it will be completely useless. In this regard alone If you plan on playing peacefully, then the Aztecs are actually a better choice trough out the game than for instance England or Rome. Unless of course you actually get "lucky" and someone declares war at you at the right moment, but as you already said, the correct way is to wage war yourself at the right moment. I do realize that some civs are intended to be better at something than some other civs, but this would mean that for instance England should be better at war than Aztecs because as you said it yourself, it basicly forces you to go to war in order to benefit from its UU's.

However, my ultimate point was that there could be a more reasonable way for the player and easier way for the AI to handle this. If we would give each civ a civ specific unit ability/strenght wich would be available right from the start of the game. There could still be UU’s with unique traits, but this could potentially be more interesting than just plain UU’s with forever lasting abilities and non forever lasting abilities. You obviously would have to remove the UU’s forever lasting abilities since now your civ would have some special ability that lasts trough out the game. Think about how it would not only help the AI, but it would also give more (easily) flavor for different AI civs. That’s my ultimate point.

Uberfrog said:

Surely the fact that you've only just realised this means that it can't be quite so imbalanced as you seem to think?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but still I genuinely think that my idea might be better for the AI and actually also better for the player than the current one.

I think promotions being kept after upgrading is a really good thing.

I'm not sure about Roman units, haven't played them recently, but the English promotion actually carries over. But it's useless after upgrading, since the upgrade path is to melee units.
And that is far bigger issue that needs fixing and by the looks of it seems to be addressed in G+K!

Eagle Pursuit said:

Actually most civs UU's do. the only exceptions I can think of are the mounted archer units.

Click to expand...

Anything with a straight Strength upgrade doesn't - both Greek UUs, for example.

That is actually a problem. One UU gives bonus right from the start trough out the game and the other UU (as you said it) in many cases forces you to wage war in order to take advantage of that current civs UU, otherwise it will be completely useless.

Click to expand...

Those UUs tend to totally dominate their own era, to the point where the thing you carry forward is a bunch of extra cities and a bunch of extra experience. By doing it differently on different Civs, you get very different gameplay experiences across Civs. This is a *good* thing. Put it this way: If all UUs carried forward or if none did, which would you rather have: Jaguars, or Hoplites? Hoplites by a mile, right? Warriors aren't very useful already, and Hoplites are a stronger upgrade from Spearman than Jaguars are from Warriors, right? They'd have to nerf Hoplites badly to balance the two if they worked the same way.

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I like it.

elprofesor said:

If we had to scrap completely the "range" promotion, I would give a hardcoded extra range to longbowmen. That way they get to keep their uniqueness, while not keeping the extra range as gatling guns nor being able to reach range 4 as longbowmen.

Click to expand...

That would be possible, too - and maybe is a good compromise, as I see the fun in having long range longbowmen.

The only drawback would be, that this doesn't pass during upgrade (of course not, as this is the intention...) and therefore weakens England. Again.

@Drawmeus. My english skills might be far worse than I tought they were, but I really -really- belive that in my previous post I have allready ansered to that.

aziantuntija, I do have one question here: When have you ever tried to go a peaceful route with Rome? They are meant to have an early war (to expand rapidly) and then AFTER the legions and the other UU whose name escapes me, they focus on production with their UA. Since their UU's (especially the legions) are stronger, more of them will be promoted and upgraded, which is their real ability, to survive and become stronger faster than most other similar UU's. As for Civ's like Babylon, their UU isn't meant to become a superpowerful unit, it's meant to help them survive the agressive civ's like Rome and Mongolia. I do agree with you that the way the AI uses UU's needs work... a lot of work, but that's an AI problem. What you're suggesting hurts the players experience; each civ has different strategies that work best for them, and which all others suck at. Rome's strategy is an early swords-rush-fueled war, which sets them up for either another war with well-promoted troops, or a strong standing to heads towards a scientific victory, with their production focus. Mongolia's strategy is get keshiks, conquer. Romes UU actually requires more strategy to use effectively, because part of Mongolia's UA makes keshiks overpowered in their time. However, the supposed weakness of the legions is much less than the keshiks once you reach the Industrial era: now you have rifleman who are stronger because they fought in more battles than the swordsmen that China used, whereas Mongolia has cavalry that are far weaker in direct combat than Romes moderatly promoted cavalry that was upgraded from a knight. There is balance in the game already; if you want a super powerful unit that can decimate any civ quickly, you better go to war and win quick, before your UU's advantage becomes less potent/ insignificant. This is also a pretty good representation of the arms race. If your enemy has a powerful weapon, build one that's even better!

All that said, some UU's do need a bit of work, and I wouldn't mind seeing the ones that have a strength increase recieve a small but permanent percent modifier, like the Ottomans Jannisaries. But reworking the whole system is unnessacery, at least in my opinon.

Pax_Romanus said:

aziantuntija, I do have one question here: When have you ever tried to go a peaceful route with Rome? They are meant to have an early war (to expand rapidly) and then AFTER the legions and the other UU whose name escapes me, they focus on production with their UA. Since their UU's (especially the legions) are stronger, more of them will be promoted and upgraded, which is their real ability, to survive and become stronger faster than most other similar UU's. As for Civ's like Babylon, their UU isn't meant to become a superpowerful unit, it's meant to help them survive the agressive civ's like Rome and Mongolia. I do agree with you that the way the AI uses UU's needs work... a lot of work, but that's an AI problem. What you're suggesting hurts the players experience; each civ has different strategies that work best for them, and which all others suck at. Rome's strategy is an early swords-rush-fueled war, which sets them up for either another war with well-promoted troops, or a strong standing to heads towards a scientific victory, with their production focus. Mongolia's strategy is get keshiks, conquer. Romes UU actually requires more strategy to use effectively, because part of Mongolia's UA makes keshiks overpowered in their time. However, the supposed weakness of the legions is much less than the keshiks once you reach the Industrial era: now you have rifleman who are stronger because they fought in more battles than the swordsmen that China used, whereas Mongolia has cavalry that are far weaker in direct combat than Romes moderatly promoted cavalry that was upgraded from a knight. There is balance in the game already; if you want a super powerful unit that can decimate any civ quickly, you better go to war and win quick, before your UU's advantage becomes less potent/ insignificant. This is also a pretty good representation of the arms race. If your enemy has a powerful weapon, build one that's even better!

All that said, some UU's do need a bit of work, and I wouldn't mind seeing the ones that have a strength increase recieve a small but permanent percent modifier, like the Ottomans Jannisaries. But reworking the whole system is unnessacery, at least in my opinon.

Click to expand...

Pax_Romanus said:

aziantuntija, I do have one question here: When have you ever tried to go a peaceful route with Rome? They are meant to have an early war (to expand rapidly) and then AFTER the legions and the other UU whose name escapes me, they focus on production with their UA. Since their UU's (especially the legions) are stronger, more of them will be promoted and upgraded, which is their real ability, to survive and become stronger faster than most other similar UU's. As for Civ's like Babylon, their UU isn't meant to become a superpowerful unit, it's meant to help them survive the agressive civ's like Rome and Mongolia. I do agree with you that the way the AI uses UU's needs work... a lot of work, but that's an AI problem. What you're suggesting hurts the players experience; each civ has different strategies that work best for them, and which all others suck at. Rome's strategy is an early swords-rush-fueled war, which sets them up for either another war with well-promoted troops, or a strong standing to heads towards a scientific victory, with their production focus. Mongolia's strategy is get keshiks, conquer. Romes UU actually requires more strategy to use effectively, because part of Mongolia's UA makes keshiks overpowered in their time. However, the supposed weakness of the legions is much less than the keshiks once you reach the Industrial era: now you have rifleman who are stronger because they fought in more battles than the swordsmen that China used, whereas Mongolia has cavalry that are far weaker in direct combat than Romes moderatly promoted cavalry that was upgraded from a knight. There is balance in the game already; if you want a super powerful unit that can decimate any civ quickly, you better go to war and win quick, before your UU's advantage becomes less potent/ insignificant. This is also a pretty good representation of the arms race. If your enemy has a powerful weapon, build one that's even better!

All that said, some UU's do need a bit of work, and I wouldn't mind seeing the ones that have a strength increase recieve a small but permanent percent modifier, like the Ottomans Jannisaries. But reworking the whole system is unnessacery, at least in my opinon.

Click to expand...

Thirded!

To tell you the truth this is pretty frustrating . I introduced an idea about a system for a civ game, not particulary for civ5 or for G&K, but maybe for future civ, like civ6. Then it feels like everyone is just nitpicking about some other things, it feels like nobodys truly understanding what I am saying here. Im not blaming you guys for it, since the problem is very likely in my way of expressing myself in english. I must admit that I do not have the time or the energy to engage further into a debate wich does not seem to go anywhere but also doesn’t even take place in my native language.

Altough I do belive that Firaxis isnt going to completely rework the current system in G&K (or in any other expansion that would possible follow the G&K), but I will say that I would not be surprised if civ6 would have a system that would be pretty close to the system that I was describing before .

aziantuntija said:

To tell you the truth this is pretty frustrating . I introduced an idea about a system for a civ game, not particulary for civ5 or for G&K, but maybe for future civ, like civ6. Then it feels like everyone is just nitpicking about some other things, it feels like nobodys truly understanding what I am saying here. Im not blaming you guys for it, since the problem is very likely in my way of expressing myself in english. I must admit that I do not have the time or the energy to engage further into a debate wich does not seem to go anywhere but also doesn’t even take place in my native language.

Altough I do belive that Firaxis isnt going to completely rework the current system in G&K (or in any other expansion that would possible follow the G&K), but I will say that I would not be surprised if civ6 would have a system that would be pretty close to the system that I was describing before .

Click to expand...

Oh I know the feeling of it being frustrating to not be able to talk in my native language in debates. (I.e. visiting family etc.) I hope we aren't being too hard headed but to put it bluntly I like the way the system is now where you have to balance your eras and buildings to a proper strategy. Also since you didn't notice this, I think the system does a good enough job of immersion as is.

@Aziantuntija

I, for myself, understand what you are saying perfectly. I just don't think it's a good idea, for many reasons which have already been listed above.

Having UUs which behave in different ways, some of which are weak at a given time, but are good when they upgrade; and others which are very strong but only for a certain amount of time is nice. Replacing all of this variety with, in effect, a military UA is just not my cup of tea.

Lord Olleus said:

@Aziantuntija

I, for myself, understand what you are saying perfectly. I just don't think it's a good idea, for many reasons which have already been listed above.

Having UUs which behave in different ways, some of which are weak at a given time, but are good when they upgrade; and others which are very strong but only for a certain amount of time is nice. Replacing all of this variety with, in effect, a military UA is just not my cup of tea.

Click to expand...

Obviously you have not understood what I meant. I have not said that UU's should be replaced with a "military AU".

aziantuntija said:

Obviously you have not understood what I meant. I have not said that UU's should be replaced with a "military AU".

Click to expand...

aziantuntija said:

If we would give each civ a civ specific unit ability/strenght wich would be available right from the start of the game. There could still be UU’s with unique traits, but this could potentially be more interesting than just plain UU’s with forever lasting abilities and non forever lasting abilities.

Click to expand...

That sounds very much like replacing the variety of UUs we have (a combination of short term and long term ones) and adding a UA type of thing related to the military.

Lord Olleus said:

That sounds very much like replacing the variety of UUs we have (a combination of short term and long term ones) and adding a UA type of thing related to the military.

Click to expand...

What I meant was that we would have this what you called "military UA" and on top of that we would ALSO have unique units. So that we would have BOTH!

I will try to be more careful next time I try to explain something in english, but now I will go to sleep because im tired. Good night .

aziantuntija said:

What I meant was that we would have this what you called "military UA" and on top of that we would ALSO have unique units. So that we would have BOTH!

I will try to be more careful next time I try to explain something in english, but now I will go to sleep because im tired. Good night .

Click to expand...

then what would be the point in having a UU? As it stands, we have UU that start with a certain promotion that is available to all civs (as is the case with England) and those that are only available to certain civs (as is the case with Rome). On top of that there are "Unique Abilities" that may or may not be military in nature (as is the case with America, which just so happens to also be a promotion available to scouts and thus all civs).

In the case of America, should they have both a "military UA" and a "civic UA"? As it stands, America's UA is not unit specific, though it is a "military UA" available to land units. England's UA is also a "military UA" available to sea units. Arabia doesn't have a "military UA" (trade caravans).

aziantuntija said:

To tell you the truth this is pretty frustrating .

Click to expand...

You have just discovered a gameplay aspect of the game that most of us already knew, and now you are trying to rationalize it. Your idea of a "military UA" that would replace the "carry-over promotions" but not the Unique Units is interesting, but it only solves partially a problem that most of us believe isn't even there (easier for the AI to understand, but alters a gameplay aspect with whom most of us are already confortable).

Do start a thread in the "suggestions and ideas" subforum of Civ5 though, if you want to discuss it. You will get a warmer response, although the traffic there is much lower.

And I can understand your pain, English isn't my native language either, but people down here don't seem to mind some approximative grammar

ok sorry to reiterate but the reality as I see it is that UUs overall will not be changed in regards to upgrades vs hard bonuses as they are too integral to the unique playstyles of the various civs (which has been covered again many times as to why).

What I am interested in personally and back to the OP is "What is the purpose/niche of Machine Guns and how does that relate to England's UU"

Of course it is only speculation that we are armed with on this topic.... but I would argue that

1) Archer line of units is very weak to melee for a reason
2) The trade off is less range for greater melee strength
3) this creates a "new class of unit" / new niche that has not been seen
4) Allowing this "new class" of unit to have the same ability as the Archery line *without* the range penalty seems strange?*

I guess number 4 is my main thing.. Why bother to make a Frontline ranged/melee combo unit that can have 2 range?

If the intent was to continue the Archer line into industrial / modern they could have gone with Grenadiers, Mortars after Composite bows and left them with weak melee defense just like their predecessors right?

So yes I am speculating on the thought process of devs so it's pretty much useless but still makes me think that Gatling guns should lose the Range promo if the devs were on the ball and wanted this new dimension to the game of frontline ranged units.

Which perhaps means a change to longbows.

Does anyone have a *link* to whatever preview said that England isn't getting its extra spy?

That's a lot of text!

I'm going to sidestep the whole 'Should the Longbowman keep its promotion' and 'Is the new England overpowered?' arguments.

I'm rather more interested in how G+K changes England's general style of play.

The bonus spy (assuming its still there) is a nice buff to what is an awfully weak Civ. I love playing as England in Civ (hell, I wrote the War Academy guide on them) but in comparison to a lot of other UA's it's weak. This is a nice boost.

From a naval strategy point of view, things have got somewhat worse for England. Assuming you have control of the oceans not being able to waltz right through an enemy invasion fleet could concievably mean that you'll need more ships than England of old would normally require. More damage needed per kill could mean that the days of SoTL's one-shotting enemy frigates are over - nevermind killing embarked naval units at pace. It does make naval invasions less risky which should be a boon for a water-based Civ, but the problem is that naval invasions for England are already less risky. Making them less risky for everybody else reduces the relative benefit England gets from its already relatively underpowered UA.

Capturing enemy cities with ships only? That's nice, but the net effect is relatively minimal. You can take coastal cities with ships provided you have one land unit available to finish the job. As England will tend to dominate the seas you tend not to have to worry about its safety. Post-G+K will mean you don't have to have this unit which is a plus, but hardly game-changing or enough of a benefit to outweigh the extended naval engagements.

The Longbowman upgrade path though - that's where the money is. I suspect that they'll replace siege units entirely for England and I wouldn't be overly surprised if England's armies come to consist of nothing but Longbowmen and their appropriate upgrades. I actually think Gatling Guns and Machine Guns are a bit overpowered myself, if the well-of-souls pages are accurate. What'll mean more than anything else though is that England will have a land-based combat bonus for quite a bit of the game. This only gets to work though if the Longbowman bonus remains a promotion as it currently is. My worry is that it'll be changed to a stat increase during development and England will stay well down the list of mediocre Civs.