.

[Drawmeus]

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

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.

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.

 

[Deggial]

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.

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.

 

[aziantuntija]

@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.

 

[Pax_Romanus]

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.

 

[Babri]

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.

 

[Gucumatz]

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.

Thirded!

 

[aziantuntija]

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 .

 

[Gucumatz]

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 .

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]

@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.

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

 

[aziantuntija]

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.

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 .

 

[flairin]

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 .

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).

 

[elprofesor]

To tell you the truth this is pretty frustrating .

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

 

[kurtkage]

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.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

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

 

[Veneke]

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.

 

[aziantuntija]

Yeah I know I said that I wont post anymore about this thing, but since it seems like that you have now understood what I tried to say before, I will answer to your critics.

”Military UA” (with regular UA + UU’s of course) would help the AI because then you could code the AI to use that particular civs ability right from the start of the game. This is much more easier to code the AI to than just the UU system where the UU appears in different time with different civs and that some civs get to carry the benefits and others don’t. Just like the regular UA, the “military UA” would also give all civs more characteristic and in overall make the game more interesting. Example: England is basicly already having a “military UA” with their +2 extra ship movement, just add a regular UA to its arsenal and BAM, theres one civ with UA, UU’s and the new “military UA”.

And please everyone, think outside the box when thinking about this “military UA” –thing. Im not saying they should change the system in the upcoming G&K or any other possible future expansion for the civ5 for that matter. Why? Because the civ5’s AI would not propably benefit anything from it, obviously because it is not build for it. So if you are waiting me to rework all the civs in civ5 and present them to you in this conversation, then sorry to disappoint you but its not going to happen. England was just an example how the “military UA” could work in practice, im sure you all got the picture.

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.

It took me about 5 posts to actually get my point across for you guys (because my bad english skills). So you can be sure that I am not going to start a thread about this thing, im NOT going to start this all over again . But thanks for the tip anyway.

You have just discovered a gameplay aspect of the game that most of us already knew, and now you are trying to rationalize it.

Yeah I see what you are aiming with that, how can I possibly understand the system if I just discovered it, right? Well this is not rocket science, actually it’s a loophole that you just happen to call “gameplay aspect”. AI wise im normally not too fond of adding new gameplay systems to a game (for obvious reasons), but this case is fundamentally different. Because If not all the civs has that what you call “gameplay aspect” available and the AI does not even understand to use it –at all-, then I would not call it a “gameplay aspect”, it’s a loophole for the human player. And as I have already told that I know that there are many systems in the game that us humans can use more better than the AI can, (I mean that’s why the AI gets so many bonuses, right?) but combat is a bit different. The AI aids are far more limited in combat, sure you can give the AI more units but that’s about it. So therefore giving this kind of loophole for the human players in combat, is actually a huge mistake. So yeah, I actually do understand whats going on with this “feature”, even tough I just discovered it. Also FYI, the reason why I haven’t really discovered this before is the fact that almost all my games have been with civs that do not have this loophole in their UU’s, like England and Rome. So please don’t think im stupid just because I (because of a personal preference) haven’t got the same change to actually discover it as the others who have discovered it propably has got.

 

[The_J]

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

That's actually not something which is really totally confirmed, see here.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

That's actually not something which is really totally confirmed, see here.

Thanks!

 

[elprofesor]

So please don’t think im stupid just because I (because of a personal preference) haven’t got the same change to actually discover it as the others who have discovered it propably has got.

Ok, re-reading my post I come across as quite rude, even though it wasn't my intention, so sorry for that. I never meant to convey that you were stupid.

 

[Pax_Romanus]

Ditto, I just tried to explain the balance as I understood. I didn't understand your intention and thought you wanted to make these changes to the current ciV system, I think your ideas would be worth looking into for civ 6, though.