Imbalanced Civs

I'm really enjoying the game thus far, but there does seem to be some need of tweaking when it comes to balancing civ's. The Romans definitely seem to have gotten a better deal while the Russians have gotten the shorter end of the stick.

Also, when it comes to unique units, while it seems more to be a superficial change (no real difference in gameplay), countries like the US, England, Germany, and Japan get quite a few, while China, Egypt, India, and Arabia have squat. Hrm... maybe it's a WWII deal they're setting up... Still, it would've been nice to get a few unique units for each civ, and not just for some.

dc82 said:

Also, when it comes to unique units, while it seems more to be a superficial change (no real difference in gameplay), countries like the US, England, Germany, and Japan get quite a few, while China, Egypt, India, and Arabia have squat. Hrm... maybe it's a WWII deal they're setting up... Still, it would've been nice to get a few unique units for each civ, and not just for some.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, not all the unique units are unique anyway -- some of them (maybe all of them) may be unique in name only. The Germans were attacking me and their 88's didn't actually look like the 88mm Flak Anti-Aircraft gun, in fact they looked exactly like the standard Artillery unit which looks kind of like US MLRS rocket artillery. From what I could tell the Panzers looked like regular tanks too, anyway they certainly don't look like any WW2 Era German tank I am aware of. The Heinkel bomber looks a bit different, but I think it's essentially the American B17 reskinned with a German looking gray color. The ME109s not only look mostly like Spitfires, if you look closely you'll notice they have British-looking Roundels on their fuselage.

Quite a few of the non-unique units actually look very different from Civ to Civ. As you may have noticed warriors all look a bit different. English Veteran warriors have some kind of Saxon looking skull-cap, whereas Roman Veteran warriors have a traditional looking Roman helmet with crest. IIRC the English Warriors also carry a big old hammer, whereas the Roman warriors have a Gladius. Similarly I was rather suprised when I ran into some Arabian Riflemen and they all had turbans on their heads (although honestly I thought they looked more like British Colonial Sikh troops than Arabs).

Yeah, that's definitely a nice touch that they've done - seems like many of the units do have unique looks (such as settlers). Personally, it's always nice to have these units as unique to the civ as possible, but I'm sure they didn't want to confuse people as well if each civ had a different name for each unit.

Romans is the only civ thats imbalanced powerfully

MKElderGod said:

Romans is the only civ thats imbalanced powerfully

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that necessarily. There are a lot of civs with very big bonuses, some you get early, some you get later in the game. Think about Japan and their ocean food and then loyalty bonuses. What about German getting free veterancy and free upgrades with elite units (no Leonardo's Workshop needed)? Aztec units heal after a victory right from the get-go. Americans factory production plus a free great person at the start. Zulu warrior movement plus over-run bonus. The list goes on and on.

Wait for retail, I think you'll start to feel differently about the Romans. They get a nice boom opportunity, but they can be foiled pretty quickly if you know what to expect. Oh, and wait until you play a French culture pusher. You'll be pretty pissed.

MKElderGod said:

Romans is the only civ thats imbalanced powerfully

Click to expand...

If you're talking about the Roman Republic settler boost thing, ever civ can change their governemt to Republic. It just takes about 3 or 4 techs.

TheMystic said:

I wouldn't say that necessarily. There are a lot of civs with very big bonuses, some you get early, some you get later in the game. Think about Japan and their ocean food and then loyalty bonuses. What about German getting free veterancy and free upgrades with elite units (no Leonardo's Workshop needed)? Aztec units heal after a victory right from the get-go. Americans factory production plus a free great person at the start. Zulu warrior movement plus over-run bonus. The list goes on and on.

Click to expand...

Personally I think the craziest bonus is the Mongols "take over any barbarian village and it becomes one of your own cities" bonus. I don't see how that can be anything other than completely unbalancing.

Barbarian villages are often placed very bad with no production tile for example. They won't get you a big advantage.

Tschesae said:

Barbarian villages are often placed very bad with no production tile for example. They won't get you a big advantage.

Click to expand...

Not true at all. I've seen some excellent barbarian locations before. The only time they've ticked me off is when there was no food nearby!

The Romans are always made to be one of the strongest Civs; they're always the easiest Civ to play as and they require the most basic strategy to succeed with, especially for early expansion. At least it's true in Civ IV and Civ Rev, I don't remember Civ II and I never played I or III, but that's definitely been the case in Civ IV. Best trait combos for early expansion, strongest UU in the game (especially for rapid expansion), decent UB. Starting with Republic and cheaper roads gives the Romans a huge advantage for fast growth at the beginning of the game. I'm not complaining though, some Civ has to be the strongest, doesn't surprise me they pick the first empire that pretty much all of Western Civilization simulates...

bonafide11 said:

The Romans are always made to be one of the strongest Civs; they're always the easiest Civ to play as and they require the most basic strategy to succeed with, especially for early expansion. At least it's true in Civ IV and Civ Rev, I don't remember Civ II and I never played I or III, but that's definitely been the case in Civ IV. Best trait combos for early expansion, strongest UU in the game (especially for rapid expansion), decent UB. Starting with Republic and cheaper roads gives the Romans a huge advantage for fast growth at the beginning of the game. I'm not complaining though, some Civ has to be the strongest, doesn't surprise me they pick the first empire that pretty much all of Western Civilization simulates...

Click to expand...

Republican government could be a huge advantage but in MP not every player will let you grown without doing anything. Also you need to consider that if you have a bunch of cities you need to be able to protect all of them, and that could be difficult, specially if you are using the mega city for wonders and buildings production and the rest only for settlers.
Yesterday I played a MP with Egypt vs Rome, and the other guys right away was trying to build his city. I just create 3 armies of legions and I took care of him in no time. YES is a advantage starting with Republican, but if you are not careful, probably you will get own in no time.

I find the Chinese bonus to be quite powerful. The extra pop in your city can give you quite an edge in the early game, and getting the tech lead.

bonafide11 said:

The Romans are always made to be one of the strongest Civs; they're always the easiest Civ to play as and they require the most basic strategy to succeed with, especially for early expansion. At least it's true in Civ IV and Civ Rev, I don't remember Civ II and I never played I or III, but that's definitely been the case in Civ IV. Best trait combos for early expansion, strongest UU in the game (especially for rapid expansion), decent UB. Starting with Republic and cheaper roads gives the Romans a huge advantage for fast growth at the beginning of the game. I'm not complaining though, some Civ has to be the strongest, doesn't surprise me they pick the first empire that pretty much all of Western Civilization simulates...

Click to expand...

In Civ I & II all civilizations were the same. I didn't play Civ III much, so I can't comment on that one. The Romans are my favorite ones to play in Civ IV/Warlords though

TheMystic said:

I wouldn't say that necessarily. There are a lot of civs with very big bonuses, some you get early, some you get later in the game. Think about Japan and their ocean food and then loyalty bonuses. What about German getting free veterancy and free upgrades with elite units (no Leonardo's Workshop needed)? Aztec units heal after a victory right from the get-go. Americans factory production plus a free great person at the start. Zulu warrior movement plus over-run bonus. The list goes on and on.

Wait for retail, I think you'll start to feel differently about the Romans. They get a nice boom opportunity, but they can be foiled pretty quickly if you know what to expect. Oh, and wait until you play a French culture pusher. You'll be pretty pissed.

Click to expand...

Id rather have Republic and half price roads than any other start.

Sounds like Sid's plan is working.

EVERY civ is "overpowered"!

I think Russia not starting with Communism is ridiculous.

Greece starts with Democracy.

Arabs get Mathematics.

Rome gets Republic and Code of Laws.

Russia should get Communism.

Padma said:

Sounds like Sid's plan is working.

EVERY civ is "overpowered"!

Click to expand...

I've always felt this way. I never min/max enough for the civ differences to really matter to me.

General Drake said:

I think Russia not starting with Communism is ridiculous.

Greece starts with Democracy.

Arabs get Mathematics.

Rome gets Republic and Code of Laws.

Russia should get Communism.

Click to expand...

Arabs don't get Mathematics until the Medieval age. Russia wasn't communist until World War 1. I'd be cool with Russia getting Communism for free when they hit the Modern Age or maybe even the Industrial Age, but it wouldn't make sense for them to start with Communism like the Greeks with Democracy or Romans with Republic.

ydejin said:

Arabs don't get Mathematics until the Medieval age. Russia wasn't communist until World War 1. I'd be cool with Russia getting Communism for free when they hit the Modern Age or maybe even the Industrial Age, but it wouldn't make sense for them to start with Communism like the Greeks with Democracy or Romans with Republic.

Click to expand...

In the timeline of the world, communism wasn't even put into action or at least conceptualized until the early - mid 1800s. Democracy and Repulic type governments were a big part of the ancient greek and roman era though. Read up a bit on Socrates and Plato, they existed during that time.

Monarchy, Fundamentalism, Communism, etc. all came after really. It makes sense for the Greeks and Romans to have their government types. Just think, they were at a point back in the ancient times where we are today in terms of government. They were very advanced.