2 UUs per civ? More traits as well?

[jeffreyac]

I posted in the earlier thread saying I didn't like the one-UU-per-era idea, as I thought it detracted a bit from empires who were historically, say, powerhouses during ancient times - but I find I like the 2 UU idea for the same reason. If you had an empire strong (historically) in a particular era but that was relatively short lived, then both UU's come in that era. A more balanced or longer lasting civ (again, historically) could have its UU's spread between eras to reflect that.

Of course, this assumes you WANT civs to have similar strengths in eras that they did in the real world - if not, then disregard!

 

[Drakan]

Yes but the problem with this suggestion that looks good on paper is the practical side to it.

i.e. Summeria. You are going to have two UU's Obviously one defensive and one offensive, otherwise there would be an imbalance (having two offensive UU's is an overkill compared to the other civs regular units of the time). So say you have the Vulture with strength 6 for offensive and the Enkidu for defense with strength 5. It would be very hard to take Summeria down in the early game as they would be both strong in offense and defense.

I think the multiple UU's doesn't add to core gameplay and creates huge gameplay imbalances. Better left for a mod. One UU per civ is fine.

 

[Antilogic]

I'm casting my vote against the Empire Earth idea--I've played that game, and although it kind of works there, not for Civ4.

On the person who said there wasn't enough unit variety...this version of Civ has the greatest unit variety of any Civ incarnation. I'm not going to complain on that note.

I'd rather leave this to modders myself...I'm fine with a UU and a UB. Given that, to start a game right now, I have to look at starting techs, two leader traits, a UU, and a UB. I think that is more than enough for distinguishing civilizations. Extra UUs, while appropriate for some Civs, may not be as appropriate for others (as argued above).

@jeffreyac: The game already does mimic the real world, and its about as good as its going to get, given the Civ-style rules. As for strengths, moving some UUs around (like Keshik from Horse Archer to a Knight replacement) will be equally effective in adjusting the eras where civilizations are strong. This debate also doesn't include the UBs as influencing when a Civilization is strong.

And on traits...the way Civ4 is set up currently, there really is not much room for new traits. I did some brainstorming, and what I have developed is more of a wishlist for Civ5 than a working solution to Civ4.

Agricultural: As mentioned above, this tramples on Expansive, majorly. Also, look at the double production buildings: Expansive has granaries. What could this trait be, to make it unique? Since a "food/health" trait is already in the game, this is out.

Seafaring: Sounds like a good idea, right? Not really: the double production buildings are divided up: Expansive (Harbors), Drydocks (Aggressive), and Organized (Lighthouses). Plus, Financial also receives benefit from extra commerce in coastal squares, so they already get a "seafaring" benefit. Can you come up with a unique bonus that doesn't infringe on other traits?

Scientific: A personal wish of mine is to somehow divide up the benefits of the Financial trait into a "Financial" trait that is more money-related, and a "Scientific" trait that is more science related. However, this doesn't work out well: Financial's commerce bonus covers all forms of commerce: science, gold, culture, and espionage. Philosophical's extra great people can also be great scientists, so that doesn't help either. Also, the logical double production buildings are already divided up amongst many other traits: Universities (Philosophical) and Libraries (Creative). So, this isn't really a feasible idea right now either. If, in Civ5, they take into account to separate out the scientific and financial traits from the beginning, this may be the new trait.

Espionage: Obviously, we would think of a better name for it, but a dedicated espionage trait is nowhere to be found in the game. Perhaps they should receive double production on Intelligence Agencies and Security Bureaus, and then some other boost like -10% cost of espionage missions. The numbers would have to be balanced by actual playtesting, but there is opportunity here.

Ideally, any new trait will give us an additional 11 leader trait combos. So only one will allow a maximum of 14 additional leaders (given that 3 trait combos are unused). However, I think we will be waiting for Civ5 for that one...

 

[jeffreyac]

Well, the more I think about it, I have to admit I reluctantly agree - while the extra UU idea is neat, it really wouldn't add a lot to the game. The complexity level is already pretty high - and while there are minor differences in, say, the modern armor of different countries in the real world, it does seem to me that these differences would be small enough to consider them the same stats-wise for in-game purposes.

Oh, and to those who've noticed I didn't add a lot to this thread with my response, ya got me - I'm just testing my sig line to see what it looks like...

 

[ladiesman]

I would also like various UU's. That or more differing units one way or the other. As it is the game has too little unit variety.

Or perhaps the UU could just be the 'elite' soldier of the race through time. I.E. they evolve through time as certian techs are researched(I.E. The viking berserk would be seen in the modern era with a similar offensive as it had in the ancient era. For example the Beserk could evolve through the ages into it eventually evolved into a marine with city attack bonuses).

Now that's a good idea. I like that alot.

That way, really, you would have a UU through the ages if done right, but not unbalance it so much and add in TOO much...

It goes into the realm of the "what-if" unit, which I like anyway, but give everyone a UU in the Ancient Age and have it upgrade/continue through the modern. That way a Civ's strength doesn't fizzle out after their UU is gone.

It would keep the same advantages, only adapted (let's say a unit with 25% vs. Mounted Units in the ancient age would have 25% vs. Armored or Helicopter units in the Modern age.) Instead of the UU upgrading to just a normal unit, it would upgrade to the next era of it.

 

[hoopsnerd]

I think there's potential for seafaring but not for agricultural. CivIII's agricultural trait added 1 food to the beginning of every cities growth and was easily the most powerful trait. Too powerful. In CivIV expansive adds 2 food to the end of a cities growth. It's less powerful because it only applies to cities with a large enough food production (agricultural cities) but works similarly enough that I doubt you'll see a more similar trait to CivIII's agricultural trait being added.

Who says the aggricultural trait adds 1food to a city in civ4? That wouldn't make it overpowered anyways... I still wouldn't choose that over Philosiphical, Financial, or Industrious... 1 more food per city? Good point about how expansive is already covering this traight though...

 

[hoopsnerd]

I'm casting my vote against the Empire Earth idea--I've played that game, and although it kind of works there, not for Civ4.

On the person who said there wasn't enough unit variety...this version of Civ has the greatest unit variety of any Civ incarnation. I'm not going to complain on that note.

I'd rather leave this to modders myself...I'm fine with a UU and a UB. Given that, to start a game right now, I have to look at starting techs, two leader traits, a UU, and a UB. I think that is more than enough for distinguishing civilizations. Extra UUs, while appropriate for some Civs, may not be as appropriate for others (as argued above).

@jeffreyac: The game already does mimic the real world, and its about as good as its going to get, given the Civ-style rules. As for strengths, moving some UUs around (like Keshik from Horse Archer to a Knight replacement) will be equally effective in adjusting the eras where civilizations are strong. This debate also doesn't include the UBs as influencing when a Civilization is strong.

And on traits...the way Civ4 is set up currently, there really is not much room for new traits. I did some brainstorming, and what I have developed is more of a wishlist for Civ5 than a working solution to Civ4.

Agricultural: As mentioned above, this tramples on Expansive, majorly. Also, look at the double production buildings: Expansive has granaries. What could this trait be, to make it unique? Since a "food/health" trait is already in the game, this is out.

Seafaring: Sounds like a good idea, right? Not really: the double production buildings are divided up: Expansive (Harbors), Drydocks (Aggressive), and Organized (Lighthouses). Plus, Financial also receives benefit from extra commerce in coastal squares, so they already get a "seafaring" benefit. Can you come up with a unique bonus that doesn't infringe on other traits?

Scientific: A personal wish of mine is to somehow divide up the benefits of the Financial trait into a "Financial" trait that is more money-related, and a "Scientific" trait that is more science related. However, this doesn't work out well: Financial's commerce bonus covers all forms of commerce: science, gold, culture, and espionage. Philosophical's extra great people can also be great scientists, so that doesn't help either. Also, the logical double production buildings are already divided up amongst many other traits: Universities (Philosophical) and Libraries (Creative). So, this isn't really a feasible idea right now either. If, in Civ5, they take into account to separate out the scientific and financial traits from the beginning, this may be the new trait.

Espionage: Obviously, we would think of a better name for it, but a dedicated espionage trait is nowhere to be found in the game. Perhaps they should receive double production on Intelligence Agencies and Security Bureaus, and then some other boost like -10% cost of espionage missions. The numbers would have to be balanced by actual playtesting, but there is opportunity here.

Ideally, any new trait will give us an additional 11 leader trait combos. So only one will allow a maximum of 14 additional leaders (given that 3 trait combos are unused). However, I think we will be waiting for Civ5 for that one...

Clearly some of the current traits would need an overhaul with some of their bonuses for this to be applicabale... A couple things:

Why do Organized civs build Lighthouses faster and Expansive civs build Harbors faster? Harbor doesn't help you grow (cept a bit of health), it helps trade. Lighthouses don't help you organize, they help you grow...

Seafaring: build Drydock (and lighthouse, harbor preferably) at 150% speed, all ships get a +1 movement bonus, +1 trade routes in all coastal cities.

Scientific: +10% science in all cities. Build Library, University, Research Lab at 150% speed. Build Oxford with 4 universites.

 

[gregh87]

I'm casting my vote against the Empire Earth idea--I've played that game, and although it kind of works there, not for Civ4.

On the person who said there wasn't enough unit variety...this version of Civ has the greatest unit variety of any Civ incarnation. I'm not going to complain on that note.

I'd rather leave this to modders myself...I'm fine with a UU and a UB. Given that, to start a game right now, I have to look at starting techs, two leader traits, a UU, and a UB. I think that is more than enough for distinguishing civilizations. Extra UUs, while appropriate for some Civs, may not be as appropriate for others (as argued above).

@jeffreyac: The game already does mimic the real world, and its about as good as its going to get, given the Civ-style rules. As for strengths, moving some UUs around (like Keshik from Horse Archer to a Knight replacement) will be equally effective in adjusting the eras where civilizations are strong. This debate also doesn't include the UBs as influencing when a Civilization is strong.

And on traits...the way Civ4 is set up currently, there really is not much room for new traits. I did some brainstorming, and what I have developed is more of a wishlist for Civ5 than a working solution to Civ4.

Agricultural: As mentioned above, this tramples on Expansive, majorly. Also, look at the double production buildings: Expansive has granaries. What could this trait be, to make it unique? Since a "food/health" trait is already in the game, this is out.

Seafaring: Sounds like a good idea, right? Not really: the double production buildings are divided up: Expansive (Harbors), Drydocks (Aggressive), and Organized (Lighthouses). Plus, Financial also receives benefit from extra commerce in coastal squares, so they already get a "seafaring" benefit. Can you come up with a unique bonus that doesn't infringe on other traits?

Scientific: A personal wish of mine is to somehow divide up the benefits of the Financial trait into a "Financial" trait that is more money-related, and a "Scientific" trait that is more science related. However, this doesn't work out well: Financial's commerce bonus covers all forms of commerce: science, gold, culture, and espionage. Philosophical's extra great people can also be great scientists, so that doesn't help either. Also, the logical double production buildings are already divided up amongst many other traits: Universities (Philosophical) and Libraries (Creative). So, this isn't really a feasible idea right now either. If, in Civ5, they take into account to separate out the scientific and financial traits from the beginning, this may be the new trait.

Espionage: Obviously, we would think of a better name for it, but a dedicated espionage trait is nowhere to be found in the game. Perhaps they should receive double production on Intelligence Agencies and Security Bureaus, and then some other boost like -10% cost of espionage missions. The numbers would have to be balanced by actual playtesting, but there is opportunity here.

Ideally, any new trait will give us an additional 11 leader trait combos. So only one will allow a maximum of 14 additional leaders (given that 3 trait combos are unused). However, I think we will be waiting for Civ5 for that one...

Seafaring: +1 trade route for all coastal cities, free Navigation 1 promotion to all naval units.

Scientific: -5% Cost of all technologies.

Scientific would overlap financial and philosophical, but just an idea.

 

[Thedrin]

Composing a seafaring trait.

Trade Routes:

I'm leaning towards being in favour of a seafaring promotion but I'm opposed to it being used for trade route bonuses. There are two possible types of trade route bonuses:

1) extra trade routes per city,
2) commerce bonuse to existing trade routes.

The first isn't very useful. There are a limited number of good trade routes in any game. It would help to focus them in the cities in which they were most profitable but I don't believe that advantage would be very great, especially since trade routes are assigned based on resulting commerce, not on resulting beakers, espionage points, gold, and culture. The second is right out the window (though I use to champion it); a civ is less likely to sign an open borders treaty with a civ that gets more from the treaty than they do.

Ship Promotions:

There's also a problem with giving ship promotion bonuses to a leader trait. There are a number of map types in which ships aren't used at all - Highlands, Lakes, Great Plains. Free ship promotions would be useless on such maps and lend to a very weak trait.

Cheap Buildings:

There is plenty of room for seafaring related cheap buildings. Expansive can be given cheap aquaducts instead of cheap harbours. Aggressive can be given cheap stables instead of cheap drydocks. And organised doesn't need a third cheap building - let it keep its half price factories and make it pay full price for lighthouses. The customs house is not yet tied to any trait.

That's 4 seafaring related cheap buildings. But there's a huge problem with this. And it's the one noted under ship promotions. If the trait only provides production bonuses to coastal cities then it will be unuseable in many map types.

Conclusion:

There are available ingredients for a seafaring trait but you'll have to first find a way to make the trait useful for land locked civs.

 

[Astax]

A UU for a ship and a land UU would be sweet.

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

I was thinking about the ship UU -- but there are some problems --
Hard to do with some Civs
Mogolian unique ship??
Zulu unique Ship??

but lets give it a try ---

BtS Civs

Babylonian -- an upgraded galley -- not sure what to call it
Dutch -- has one -- needs a unique land unit ??
Ethiopian -- a early galley -- can travel on ocean
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537(1965)6:2<137:OTPOSV>2.0.CO;2-W
Holy Roman Empire -- river barge -- travel rivers -- provides unit heal, stacks with medic promotion
Khmer -- patrol boats (extra defence in coast, cannot end turn on ocean, replaces guided missle cruiser)
Mayan ??
Native American -- canoe -- improves trade somehow, can travel on rivers
(early caravel that can travel on rivers)

Portuguese -- carrack -- need land UU
Sumerian -- ritual ships -- travel on rivers -- carry missionaries, doubles chance of city converting to religion if in city when missionary tries to spread religion

Warlords Civs

Carthage -- a trimarine counter of some type -- 2 first stikes against trimarines
Celts -- a better transport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Shipping_Limited
Korea -- turtle ship -- replaces ship of line -- slow -- but powerful (only coastal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_ship
Ottoman -- upgunned caravel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire#Ottoman_Navy
Viking -- viking ship -- duh -- replaces trimarine -- can carry troops, cannot add to naval combat -- can travel ocean

Zulu ?? -- maybe a modern south african ship

Vanilla Civs
America -- Monitor -- replaces ironclad, 100% defense in coast
Arabs -- dhow travel on river -- heals units when stacked
Aztecs -- ??
China -- junk -- can travel on river -- when stacked with units atacking
crossing river, removes river defense bonus, can carry trebs, which can shoot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_warfare#From_Wood_and_Wind_to_Steel_and_Steam
Egypt -- guided missle patrol boats -- can carry guided missles -- replaces destroyers
England -- sloop -- replaces caravel -- faster
France -- steath destroyer (more stealthy)
Germany -- pocket battleship replaces battleship, faster and +1 strength, -25% to air attack
Greece -- Athenean trimarine (faster) free navigation
maybe fireship -- replaces privateer? -- very cheap -- blockages one turn then dies -- always dies in combat, but high attack -- low speed compared to SoL and frigate

Inca -- ??
India -- small aircraft carrier (carries 2 fighters) cheaper to build by half
Japan -- aircraft carrier gives auto intercept promotion to based planes
Mali -- ??
MOngolia -- ??
Persia -- Boghammer -- patrol craft, plus 50% in coast attack -- minus 50% defense everywhere
Rome -- quinqueremes that permits combat units to board -- cannot exit except in city, adds 33% of attack and defense to ship combat -- if storm bad weather in area -- ships are lost
Russia -- frigate replacement -- better bombardment
Spain -- War Galleon slower than frigate, as powerful as frigate --


Traveling on river -- any square bounded by river is permittable to navel units
(any square where you can put waterwheel) -- cannot enter hill terrain or mountain terrain

Comments??

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

I also think they should buff (most) of the current UUs. To me, a UU is a unit that should make up most of a civs army and be pretty powerful and terrifying (except Indias But the Fast Worker could maybe use a tweak. Would +25% building speed be to broken? Probably...). As it is, a lot of UUs arn't nearly strong enough or have enough of a difference from the 'vanilla' version of the unit. Prats don't need any boosting >.<

 

[Rancid Sushi]

More UUs are what I want.

Longboats for Vikings

Turtle ships: Korea

Zweihanders: HRE

Templar Knights: France

Mamelukes: Arabia (Camel Archers are too generic and weak)

Onagers: Rome?

That's all I can think of for now.

 

[Antilogic]

Composing a seafaring trait.

Trade Routes:

I'm leaning towards being in favour of a seafaring promotion but I'm opposed to it being used for trade route bonuses. There are two possible types of trade route bonuses:

1) extra trade routes per city,
2) commerce bonuse to existing trade routes.

The first isn't very useful. There are a limited number of good trade routes in any game. It would help to focus them in the cities in which they were most profitable but I don't believe that advantage would be very great, especially since trade routes are assigned based on resulting commerce, not on resulting beakers, espionage points, gold, and culture. The second is right out the window (though I use to champion it); a civ is less likely to sign an open borders treaty with a civ that gets more from the treaty than they do.

Ship Promotions:

There's also a problem with giving ship promotion bonuses to a leader trait. There are a number of map types in which ships aren't used at all - Highlands, Lakes, Great Plains. Free ship promotions would be useless on such maps and lend to a very weak trait.

Cheap Buildings:

There is plenty of room for seafaring related cheap buildings. Expansive can be given cheap aquaducts instead of cheap harbours. Aggressive can be given cheap stables instead of cheap drydocks. And organised doesn't need a third cheap building - let it keep its half price factories and make it pay full price for lighthouses. The customs house is not yet tied to any trait.

That's 4 seafaring related cheap buildings. But there's a huge problem with this. And it's the one noted under ship promotions. If the trait only provides production bonuses to coastal cities then it will be unuseable in many map types.

Conclusion:

There are available ingredients for a seafaring trait but you'll have to first find a way to make the trait useful for land locked civs.

I'm largely in agreement with your analysis. I'm building a "minimal" mod where I'm adjusting some traits, UUs, UBs, and stuff without adding too much...long story short, I'm taking out double-production lighthouses from Organized, thinking about adjusting Creative to have two double-production buildings, and more. I have considered moving a lot of stuff around, but I think a scientific trait is really not viable until the financial bonus is changed so that it doesn't overlap.

My rule is that of no-overlapping, if at all possible, while retaining utility on all map types and with as many game-rule-option possibilities as possible. So I'm against the vassal state bonus for Imperialistic because I can select "No Vassal States". I'm against a Seafaring trait because it is useless on non-water map types. Look at the extreme "Always Peace" option: Charismatic still provides happiness, Imperialistic still provides faster settlers, and Aggressive still provides quick barracks that give +2 happiness with Nationhood (okay, I'm stretching Aggressive, but you get the picture).

On some of the suggestions above, why change the double-production rule to a +150% production on the same buildings some traits already provide double-production on? Now that's just getting silly--no traits currently provide additional production on buildings that other traits provide double on...what about a Scientific/Philosophical leader? Or a Scientific/Creative leader? On adding a meager 10% science bonus to cities...is that really going to be all that noticeable? That's like giving everybody the Korean UB bonus...I'm not thinking that is strong enough to warrant a trait, especially compared to Financial. And also, nobody has found a decent counter to Financial providing a bonus in coastal cities. It's easy to reassign double-production buildings, I agree, but with something like the Financial bonus, it is harder to create a Seafaring trait. Most of the ideas I've seen so far for the Seafaring trait are commercial/trading in nature, which seems to fall into a "Financial" domain instead of a unique domain. In terms of game mechanics and traits that influence them, espionage is suspiciously lacking.

My hope is for Civ5, they will incorporate a different Scientific and Financial trait from the start, along with all the other traits already in the game: that will give us 66 instead of 55 possible trait combinations. And, for some reason, I doubt there will ever be more than 66 leaders in a Firaxis-created Civ game; modders will have to make more.

 

[Antilogic]

I was thinking about the ship UU -- but there are some problems --
Hard to do with some Civs
Mogolian unique ship??
Zulu unique Ship??

but lets give it a try ---

BtS Civs

Babylonian -- an upgraded galley -- not sure what to call it
Dutch -- has one -- needs a unique land unit ??
Ethiopian -- a early galley -- can travel on ocean
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537(1965)6:2<137:OTPOSV>2.0.CO;2-W
Holy Roman Empire -- river barge -- travel rivers -- provides unit heal, stacks with medic promotion
Khmer -- patrol boats (extra defence in coast, cannot end turn on ocean, replaces guided missle cruiser)
Mayan ??
Native American -- canoe -- improves trade somehow, can travel on rivers
(early caravel that can travel on rivers)

Portuguese -- carrack -- need land UU
Sumerian -- ritual ships -- travel on rivers -- carry missionaries, doubles chance of city converting to religion if in city when missionary tries to spread religion

Warlords Civs

Carthage -- a trimarine counter of some type -- 2 first stikes against trimarines
Celts -- a better transport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Shipping_Limited
Korea -- turtle ship -- replaces ship of line -- slow -- but powerful (only coastal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_ship
Ottoman -- upgunned caravel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire#Ottoman_Navy
Viking -- viking ship -- duh -- replaces trimarine -- can carry troops, cannot add to naval combat -- can travel ocean

Zulu ?? -- maybe a modern south african ship

Vanilla Civs
America -- Monitor -- replaces ironclad, 100% defense in coast
Arabs -- dhow travel on river -- heals units when stacked
Aztecs -- ??
China -- junk -- can travel on river -- when stacked with units atacking
crossing river, removes river defense bonus, can carry trebs, which can shoot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_warfare#From_Wood_and_Wind_to_Steel_and_Steam
Egypt -- guided missle patrol boats -- can carry guided missles -- replaces destroyers
England -- sloop -- replaces caravel -- faster
France -- steath destroyer (more stealthy)
Germany -- pocket battleship replaces battleship, faster and +1 strength, -25% to air attack
Greece -- Athenean trimarine (faster) free navigation
maybe fireship -- replaces privateer? -- very cheap -- blockages one turn then dies -- always dies in combat, but high attack -- low speed compared to SoL and frigate

Inca -- ??
India -- small aircraft carrier (carries 2 fighters) cheaper to build by half
Japan -- aircraft carrier gives auto intercept promotion to based planes
Mali -- ??
MOngolia -- ??
Persia -- Boghammer -- patrol craft, plus 50% in coast attack -- minus 50% defense everywhere
Rome -- quinqueremes that permits combat units to board -- cannot exit except in city, adds 33% of attack and defense to ship combat -- if storm bad weather in area -- ships are lost
Russia -- frigate replacement -- better bombardment
Spain -- War Galleon slower than frigate, as powerful as frigate --


Traveling on river -- any square bounded by river is permittable to navel units
(any square where you can put waterwheel) -- cannot enter hill terrain or mountain terrain

Comments??

Just a few general comments: I'm not sure creating units that can move up and down rivers works well with Civ mechanics. Also, why so many triple-hulled vessels? Are you actually referring to triremes?

Although some naval vessels are worthy of inclusion, like Turtle Ships because they are so unique, I think trying to force a naval UU on every civ is not going to work well in the long run. Some of the ideas are already a stretch...what is unique about Russian frigates compared to other European frigates? The Germans only built a few pocket battleships--they were more like novelty naval items, or like battlecruisers that were actually useful. Why would the hydrophobic Romans get a naval UU as well? Spanish galleons are a good idea, especially with the revised Age of Sail, but many of these seem a little too "forced". Especially Boghammers and Egyptian Missile Boats--what's so Egyptian about a missile-armed destroyer? Many modern countries arm destroyers with missiles!

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

I was just thinking about Greece with two UUs, which would be interesting, to say the least. If the devs followed my line of thinking, the obvious choice for the other Greek UU would be a Hoplite, which would replace a Spearman. Two UUs in the same Era? Terrifying, although short lived

 

[Lurking Liu]

Or perhaps the UU could just be the 'elite' soldier of the race through time. I.E. they evolve through time as certian techs are researched(I.E. The viking berserk would be seen in the modern era with a similar offensive as it had in the ancient era. For example the Beserk could evolve through the ages into it eventually evolved into a marine with city attack bonuses).

They've already got this, I do it all the time. Build a bunch of Berserkers and promote each one to CRII during recruitment, fight a battle to reach CRIII, then when Riflemen come online, upgrade them. It takes a few turns of mass Wealth and 0% Science, but only usually 3-4 at most on Marathon. Once you've got a few thousand gold, you upgrade those suckers to Riflemen with CRIII, Combat I, and Amphibious. They're absolute disgustoids, completely nuts in Big And Small or Archiapelago.

I really like the idea of a unique unit for each leader instead of each civ... It just doesn't make much sense to me that George Washington would be bragging about his Navy SeALs. I know it also doesn't make much sense that Gilgamesh would even exist, let alone have nuclear weapons, so maybe my point is sort of irrelevant.

As for new traits, I'd definitely like to see one that would reduce the cost of Upgrading units and perhaps allow more free units... That doesn't particularly infringe on Aggressive or Charismatic.

 

[Antilogic]

Why would that be an obvious choice? A Phalanx is a Greek formation comprised of Hoplites that use the hoplon, a large shield. Then, the Macedonians adjusted the formation to use other kinds of equipment...but that's a digression from the point.

I don't even understand why the Greeks would have a better "spearmen" UU, because all the Greek spearmen in a phalanx typically were quite weak against enemy cavalry that could maneuver against them. The phalanx was great for smashing enemy melee units, which is why it should be an axe UU and not anything else.

 

[hoopsnerd]

I don't even understand why the Greeks would have a better "spearmen" UU, because all the Greek spearmen in a phalanx typically were quite weak against enemy cavalry that could maneuver against them. The phalanx was great for smashing enemy melee units, which is why it should be an axe UU and not anything else.

Yup, if you wanted to remain true to history, mounted units should get a mega-boost against any melee unit. I mean in all reality, what would a Phalanx or a Pikeman or a Spearman do against a Horse Archer? Melee Units were pretty much worthless against any mounted unit in real life, especially mounted units using archery like the Mongols or Huns.

 

[jpinard]

One early and One late UU for each civ would be best. If no one makes that, I may break down and do it...