2 UU/UB per civ, "unique abilities"

[Aussie_Lurker]

@ Randomnerd10. Don't forget that they're *really* trying to differentiate UU. i.e. they've said more than once that they want a UU to be more than-for example "a generic swordsman with a +10% attack strength". Instead it sounds like they plan to make unique units *truly* unique in some way.

@ Ahriman. I think my issue with some civs having 2 UU, instead of a UB/UU combo, is that I feel like it constrains my available options with said Civs. For example, if I have both a UB & UU, then I can choose a builder or warmonger path. However, if I have 2 UU's, then the warmonger option becomes much more attractive.

Aussie.

 

[the343danny]

Does it bother anyone else that France's special ability is "Ancien regime" - literally "old regime"; ie, pre-revolutionary, aristocratic France - and the leader is post-revolutionary Napoleon?

I thought it would be the Old Regime (I dont know French but ancien sounds like ancient thus old) but then I discarded the idea because the leader was Napoleon

 

[Hypernova]

I'm also a little disappointed about the fact that you only have a Civ Special Ability. I think it might have been cool to have 1 special ability for the Civ, & 1 for the leader-though maybe they're saving that for a time when you can have more than 1 leader per Civ (like when expansions come out)!

I love the fact multiple leaders are out. Leaders appear to have turned back into the decorations and AI personalities they were before Civ IV. I was surprised it actually happened, because from what I've seen multiple leaders and leader determined traits were popular. I don't mind multiple leaders much, it's mainly that they determine traits that I dislike. It seems so narrow to have traits that will determine a civ throughout history spanning game by one historic leader.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As I said, though, I preferred the Colonization Model for Unique Abilities-you get 1 based on your country, & a 2nd based on the leader of that Country. I agree that leaders shouldn't be a sole determinant of a Civ's traits, but I think your choice of leader should have *some* impact in the game.

Aussie.

 

[I tech faster]

"Sun never sets": I guess since England was a prosperous nation for so long, this ability will give their golden ages an extended duration. The name makes perfect sense too.

"Monument builders": Egyptians will probably build wonders faster.

"Ancien Régime": A quick look at Wikipedia makes me thing that cities built far from the capital will be more autonomous and cost lower maintenance.

"Bushido": Units may gain a strength bonus when they are about to die.

"Sacrificial captives": Captured workers can probably be sacrificed to gain a temporary happiness bonus.

"Archaemenid Legacy": It was the largest empire in ancient history so we can expect bonuses to handle a lot of cities or a great portion of land.

"Mother Russia": Like I said, enemy units might be disadvantaged when fighting on your territory. And why not gain benefits from ice hexes?

"River warlord": It would be fun being able to move your armies faster using rivers.

Of course, these abilities will probably not only give a single bonus but two or three. Or else the differences between the 18 civs would sound pretty poor.

 

[Mercade]

Of course, these abilities will probably not only give a single bonus but two or three. Or else the differences between the 18 civs would sound pretty poor.

Not necessarily. It's probably just one effect similar to what you describe and that's quite unique already since it's unique per civ and that's a new element to the series (other than the UU/UB, insofar as a swordman with +10% is unique ).

There are more differences between civs as it's also been explained already that leaders will have their particular attributes (which will be further randomized during game setup) related to favouring combat, expansion, etc.

 

[I tech faster]

There are more differences between civs as it's also been explained already that leaders will have their particular attributes (which will be further randomized during game setup) related to favouring combat, expansion, etc.

Wasn't that just about the IA's behavior during a game ? I'm pretty sure it is.

 

[Ahriman]

Does it bother anyone else that France's special ability is "Ancien regime" - literally "old regime"; ie, pre-revolutionary, aristocratic France - and the leader is post-revolutionary Napoleon?

I agree that its amusing. But I would think about the traits, UUs, UBs as applying to the faction, not to the leader.
The leaders are just a graphical figurehead, with maybe AI preferences based on their personality.

 

[PeterWimsey]

I agree that its amusing. But I would think about the traits, UUs, UBs as applying to the faction, not to the leader.
The leaders are just a graphical figurehead, with maybe AI preferences based on their personality.

I think this is right. Washington defeated the British at Yorktown...but not with B17s...

 

[seasnake]

As I said, though, I preferred the Colonization Model for Unique Abilities-you get 1 based on your country, & a 2nd based on the leader of that Country. I agree that leaders shouldn't be a sole determinant of a Civ's traits, but I think your choice of leader should have *some* impact in the game.

Aussie.

Ha, this is what I was telling my wife last night! I want, in the expansion, to have one new leader per civ so that like Colonization there're civ specific abilities and leader bonuses as well. It's the perfect blend. I also want each civ to get a UU or UB so that all civs have 2 UU/1 UB. And I want 7 new civs, espionage and founding religions, and a chocolate river, and an Oompah Loompah, and I want, I want, I want ...

(Gets slapped)

Um, yeah, Leader bonuses sound pretty good.

 

[The_J]

Ha, this is what I was telling my wife last night!

Seriously? You're a really lucky man.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think this is right. Washington defeated the British at Yorktown...but not with B17s...

Sorry, according to my history book, it clearly states that it was Washington's B17's that gave him the tactical advantage at Yorktown !

Aussie.

 

[akinkhoo]

Sorry, according to my history book, it clearly states that it was Washington's B17's that gave him the tactical advantage at Yorktown !

Aussie.

the carrier yorkie maybe...

 

[seasnake]

Seriously? You're a really lucky man.

yeah, but we have one computer so when SHE's playing civ I either have to do something else or sit and watch. I got her into Civ III and we bought Civ IV when it came out together. Her favorite now is Ethiopia, while I usually play Augustus' Rome.

 

[kurtkage]

hmm seeing Paper Maker makes me think of Paper tech in civ4 and the university of S...
Beaker bonus or science bonus maybe?

On the temple UB and religion, civ1,2,3 all had religious buildings without the civ4 religion system, nothing new here.

The fort is very interesting, more HP or better bombard or higher defense?

Sacrifical Captives, I wonder what you get to do with them if it is more of a happiness bonus or you capture them as worker units or? Remember privateers in one of the civs that when you won a battle would give you another privateer? hehe just occured to me when thinking about capture, and you could mod in ground units to capture too and set the unit spawned.

Edit again, and if this trait means that unit capture is already in game, perhaps we will see artillery capture ala civ3?

 

[Ricci]

Religion is a game concept in Civ 5... just not a Seperate game concept... it is tied up with government, et. in their 'social policies' or something like that.

I'm sure they will have benefits (and costs) to keeping the people controlled and mystified

Thanks Krikkitone, this actually explains alot, wondering how exactly was the religious system banished. Don't know whether you have factual information or it's your own assumption, either way It makes perfect sense now, religion will exist as a political standing. In other words religion is reduced to a policy towards religion. No more religion founding, no different religions through out the globe, no religion wars or tendencies.
Wonder if they did something similar towards espionage:

policy x: We the government embrace espionage!
policy x+1 : We the government do not tolerate espionage!

- Giving the issue a thoroughly thought I as leader of the Americans choose policy x.

Nice thread actually. You will find me again around CIV IV general discussions
greetings

 

[Provost Martin]

They all sound pretty cool. Maybe I wouldn't have used manifest destiny for the Americans though. As a historian that's a pretty, hmm how should I put it, questionable attribute to put in a game such as this one.

 

[Ahriman]

As a historian that's a pretty, hmm how should I put it, questionable attribute to put in a game such as this one.

How so? The concept of Manifest Destiny was a significant part of the drive for 19th century American expansionism.

Putting it in isn't a political statement saying that we *agree* with Manifest Destiny, or American Exceptionalism (its 20th century counterpart) anymore than giving the French an Ancien Regime trait means that we like absolute monarchy.

 

[Trias]

@ Ahriman. I think my issue with some civs having 2 UU, instead of a UB/UU combo, is that I feel like it constrains my available options with said Civs. For example, if I have both a UB & UU, then I can choose a builder or warmonger path. However, if I have 2 UU's, then the warmonger option becomes much more attractive.

I don't see that much difference with the situation in civ4, where some civ's have a UU or UB that is mostly useless. (Or come to late to be useful.)

 

[bonafide11]

They all sound pretty cool. Maybe I wouldn't have used manifest destiny for the Americans though. As a historian that's a pretty, hmm how should I put it, questionable attribute to put in a game such as this one.

How so? The concept of Manifest Destiny was a significant part of the drive for 19th century American expansionism.

Putting it in isn't a political statement saying that we *agree* with Manifest Destiny, or American Exceptionalism (its 20th century counterpart) anymore than giving the French an Ancien Regime trait means that we like absolute monarchy.

I'm also a historian (Ph.D. student and teach history at the university level), and I see absolutely nothing wrong with including Manifest Destiny in the game. The fact is Manifest Destiny was a popular notion in American culture that inspired Americans to think of themselves as destined to rule the continent because of the superiority of their civilization. Firaxis isn't claiming that Manifest Destiny was a good thing that it supports, but without Manifest Destiny, the United States would not have expanded as far West as they did, and would have had difficulty setting up such a strong empire. Manifest Destiny is no worse to put in the game than "the Sun Never Sets," which is a reference to the British empire's colonization of lands throughout the world. Nobody is saying Firaxis supports that either, but it happened and it's naive to exclude it from a historical based game.