9th Civ: It's Sweden

Status
Not open for further replies.
True, but expansions don't have to follow the trend of DLC. Part of the reason to have two UU or a UI is to increase the value of your purchase. You generally want to see the things you pay for, so either a unit or something on the map is worth more. With an expansion pack, your concern is more about the big picture. It's worth pointing out that the one DLC UB is the most visible unique building, helping to make Babylonian cities very unique looking.

I suspect at least the Maya will have a UB.
 
Every European civ bar Russia (which is only European-ish) and the Netherlands, has had 2 UUs. Hell, no DLC civ has had a Unique Building. I feel like they didn't want to add a UB unless no other civ in the game would build something similar, and pretty much every building in the Western world exists somewhere in multiple nations. Hence, wats are ok for Siam, since there's no Khmer, but the US can't have malls, since Europe and Asia have plenty of those.

I would like to see UBs added to every civ that doesn't have them in a later expansion, though. Especially if they go out of their way to give European nations buildings that are actually unique, even if it means having to use mostly modern buildings. Something like a Hydrogen Community for Denmark would have me absolutely tickled pink.

There was a nice poll over at 2k what people wanted. UUs, UIs, UBs, etc.

UIs and UBs overwhelmed the UUs vote.

Was like 80% to 5% (With like 15% voting Doesn't matter to me)
 
I'm certainly highly in favour of UBs over UU. And UI over anything!

I mean, UI are truly unique, whereas UB/UU are just replacements for something already in existence. On top of that, there are fewer improvements than UB or UU, so an entirely new one is worth alot more to me.

And as a peacemongerer, two UU is basicly fairly useless. If you're not planning on war, bar the occasional defensive war, UU just end up unused. Whereas UB or UI generally have a purpose for every type of victory (well not the Moai I guess).

I'd love to see a civ with 2 UB or UB+UI. I'd say the warmongering players have what they want with so many 2UU + millitary UA civs. I really hope at least 1 new civ will be pure builder, though it seems unlikely :(
 
UI can end up benefitting your enemies though if you invade and steal them ;) Holland will be especially bad for this, since if you take a city with a Polder you get a bonus resource!
 
Nobel Peace Prize as UA, and it isn't related to the tech "Dynamite"?:(
 
Unique Units give much more flavor, as you can see them on the map, so you get the sense of a unique civilization even when the AI is playing them. Unique Buildings are just a stat boost that you don't see; I'd rather they give a better Unique Ability and two Unique Units werever possible (probably not practical in primitive civs like Aztec, Maya & Iroquois).

Unique Improvements are much better idea (because you can see them), but harder to come up with.
 
UI can end up benefitting your enemies though if you invade and steal them ;) Holland will be especially bad for this, since if you take a city with a Polder you get a bonus resource!

That's an asumption. It's possible that the tullip is part of the UA. So only the Dutch get the tullips, others may still work the tile though.

But to me, this is only making the game more interesting!!

The ability to steal away some Moai, Polders or Terrace Farms. So it creates more options for you even when you are playing against a civ with UI!
 
Unique Units give much more flavor, as you can see them on the map, so you get the sense of a unique civilization even when the AI is playing them. Unique Buildings are just a stat boost that you don't see; I'd rather they give a better Unique Ability and two Unique Units werever possible (probably not practical in primitive civs like Aztec, Maya & Iroquois).

Unique Improvements are much better idea (because you can see them), but harder to come up with.

You're right ofcourse, though... you can see buildings in a city right?

I agree though, it's much less ''visible'' for a player. And it's very personal ofcourse but I care much more about the gameplay element than the graphic element.

So a DLC civ with 2 UB would actually be less work developmentwise, since they don't have to make the graphic? I do hope they make at least 1!
 
Most non-Wonder buildings in Civ V don't have a graphical representation on the map. There are a few exceptions like the Harbor, Lighthouse, Colosseum, Stadium, Broadcast Tower, etc.

And Palace in the capital. I think it's better for game aesthetics. In Civ 4 you had all the buildings visible, but a after some time there were no more houses left, only temples, libraries, corporation skyscrapers... ;) In Civ 5 you still get some buildings represented, but cities look more like, duh, cities.

But on topic, because I haven't written here yet. I'm EXTREMELY glad that the 9th civ is Sweden. As much as I am Polish (and should hate Sweden :p ), I am a sucker for Swedish military and navy from the 17th century - so Gustavus Adolphus should be one of my favourite in-game leaders from now on. The Nobel Prize UA is surprisingly fresh, and really unexpected. I am still waiting the most for Byzantines and Austrians, but Sweden is at last getting its own place in a Civ game - much deserved IMO.
 
Unique Improvements are much better idea (because you can see them), but harder to come up with.

You can come up with a UI just by building the UB out of the city. I mean, Moai were a national wonder in Civ4, and some UBs can easily be converted. Floating gardens, for example, could have been a UI too.

And since they have made a graphical representation for Babylon's walls, they could do the same with DLC's UBs.

I'd very much like a pure builder civ too!
 
I'm glad that while Sweden has two UUs, the UA reflects more peaceful Sweden. Also pretty cool that the UUS are probably on same era so you can field them in your blue and yellow army. :)

The biggest choice in 2012: Which Civ to play first?? Or pick an old Civ with new UA?
 
Unique Units give much more flavor, as you can see them on the map, so you get the sense of a unique civilization even when the AI is playing them. Unique Buildings are just a stat boost that you don't see; I'd rather they give a better Unique Ability and two Unique Units werever possible (probably not practical in primitive civs like Aztec, Maya & Iroquois).

Unique Improvements are much better idea (because you can see them), but harder to come up with.

I agree with you. I primarily base my choice of civ to play on UU first, then UA. UB generally don't mean much to me for flavor but UI seems to be a clever idea.
 
The biggest choice in 2012: Which Civ to play first?? Or pick an old Civ with new UA?

My choice is to pick an old Civ which has changed in G&K(probably Songhai,but England is also on my list) . Then the second game would be with a new civ,probably with Austria . The third game will be in one of the 3 scenarios(probably Fall of Rome first) .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom