Are you really in favour of uniques ?

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

It sounds like you just want to play a different game. Europa Universalis might be close to what you're looking for.

And Paradox likely is a growing competitor to Firaxis, even though they likely share some of their fan base.

Practicly all company's in the strategy sector have some interrest in looking how other companies aproach certain parts of strategy/empire management games and consider the worth of it. Afterall, even their customers will often take reference in previous strategy titles of various company's as to give suggestions to new titles. Definatly, many of the choices Parado makes might also make sense for the civilization series even afcourse if there are obvious difference's like the map.

 

[daft]

All this is obviously a very intelligent conversation but to put it bluntly getting rid of uniqueness in the game would be like going back to bronze age weaponry after gunpowder had already been developed.
I understand that you might want to be able to build Legions, Longbowmen or the Samurai, for example, when playing as France, unfortunately this game is based in part On history, and without mods you cannot, and you know what?, THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING!
Uniqueness adds flavor and feel to each civ, without it the game would be a total bore!
I'm certain the developers are heading in a completely different direction that the one you suggest.
There will, and absolutely should, be more uniqueness, the more, the better, trust me, it's the only logical way to progress, addict and attract customers back or for the first time to play and enjoy the incredible experience, which no doubt, is playing a game of Civilization V.
Please my friend, as intelligent and eloquent you are (the creator of this thread), do not bring this subject around again, as it can only frustrate and amaze all those who appreciate the different feel of each civ (when playing as one) that you fail to comprehend this simple truth.
We need more uniqueness, not less! This providing, if, or rather when CIV 6 comes out it will give us what we, the progressive civ fanatic folk out there need, and that is when playing as a particular civ we will without any doubt feel that this is our civ, in accordance to the way this civ started/developed and progressed in real history, it's unique buildings, great people, abilities, units, ideologies, wonders, technologies, city building styles, city names, as well as possibly other unique details of the civ we are playing as we continue forward in history, with each passing turn. This way every other civ will look and look and behave somewhat to drastically different, every time we encounter one.
For example:
I play as Russia, I can expect to be able to build not only the Cossack cavalry down the road, but, among others, also the berdiche wielding Strelets musketmen, Russian axemen, Noblemen Cavalry, Kreposts, Mig fighters, T-34 tanks, the fearsome Katyusha's, Orthodox Christian churches and monasteries and the Kremlin. I can also expect the birth of Lenin and a very rewarding acceptance of communism as my temporary government of choice, providing me with greatly improved military unit production, the KGB, perhaps other incentives, but as democracy proves itself superior through economic and human right means I might/will be forced to adopt it as my government type. Let me hear the Russian music and songs throughout the game, let me hear Tchaikovsky and Kalinka, the song(among others). Let the available leaders of these people be expansionistic, spiritual, scientific and militaristic, among other traits, just like they were in reality, or let me pick my own trait bonuses, name and appearance, to feel that I am leading my tribe, but as myself, not a historical figure, let's see how will I lead them?
Let us feel that we are actually guiding these tribes, each of them with different pluses and minuses, their own unique units, buildings, abilities, languages, city/people names, and so on. However, give us their roots and the uniqueness/flavour they in reality developed throughout their history, give me this stuff and I will never stop playing Civilization, the game.

 

[orasis]

"No imbalance" ugh.

Imbalance is what makes games work and fun if the imbalance is not over the top (like magic in Morrowind - ). Part of the fun of games real and video, is finding "tricks" that few people have ever thought of. That's how Chess et al work.

You know what game is almost perfectly balanced? Farmville. Honestly I do not think you can lose in that game, everything is balanced. Same with every other tablet/facebook game.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

"No imbalance" ugh.

Imbalance is what makes games work and fun if the imbalance is not over the top (like magic in Morrowind - ). Part of the fun of games real and video, is finding "tricks" that few people have ever thought of. That's how Chess et al work.

You know what game is almost perfectly balanced? Farmville. Honestly I do not think you can lose in that game, everything is balanced. Same with every other tablet/facebook game.

I do agree with youre general sentiment, but otoh it would not be good neither if certain paths in the game would tend to be a "waste of time" versus "obviously more optimal paths" which would make strategy's more obvious and repetitive rather than the player would explore all sorts paths very dependant on the situation he finds himself in.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Also I stil don't see why you can't roleplay as if you had no uniques. It's as if you have this mentality that somehow youre forced to play a certain way or pick a certain civ. You really aren't.

Because there ARE uniques. As I already said, the game is designed towards uniques, and it's why there's no CLSL anymore.

When i start a game, i don't wonder if I will "roleplay" or not, I'm just playing the game as it is. "Roleplay" breaks nearly by accident. And that is what is good.

If a game can't recreate this, then it's not a Civ game. As in, only Civ1 and Civ2 were true Civ games. (no uniques, CLSL in) The sequels have exceeded a threshold on the altar of flavor, losing a strong part of their point.

All this is obviously a very intelligent conversation

No need to be sarcastic.

absolutely should, be more uniqueness[...]We need more uniqueness, not less!

So you admit you are somewhat disatisfyed with Civ5, as it should have more uniques ? I agree. Uniques are not sharp enough, and will never be (OP : developer work, number of civs)

Please my friend, as intelligent and eloquent you are (the creator of this thread), do not bring this subject around again

LOL

This providing, if, or rather when CIV 6 comes out it will give us what we, the progressive civ fanatic folk out there need, and that is when playing as a particular civ we will without any doubt feel that this is our civ, in accordance to the way this civ started/developed and progressed in real history, it's unique buildings, great people, abilities, units, ideologies, wonders, technologies, city building styles, city names, as well as possibly other unique details of the civ we are playing as we continue forward in history, with each passing turn. This way every other civ will look and look and behave somewhat to drastically different, every time we encounter one.
For example:
I play as Russia, I can expect to be able to build not only the Cossack cavalry down the road, but, among others, also the berdiche wielding Strelets musketmen, Russian axemen, Noblemen Cavalry, Kreposts, Mig fighters, T-34 tanks, the fearsome Katyusha's, Orthodox Christian churches and monasteries and the Kremlin. I can also expect the birth of Lenin and a very rewarding acceptance of communism as my temporary government of choice, providing me with greatly improved military unit production, the KGB, perhaps other incentives, but as democracy proves itself superior through economic and human right means I might/will be forced to adopt it as my government type. Let me hear the Russian music and songs throughout the game, let me hear Tchaikovsky and Kalinka, the song(among others). Let the available leaders of these people be expansionistic, spiritual, scientific and militaristic, among other traits, just like they were in reality, or let me pick my own trait bonuses, name and appearance, to feel that I am leading my tribe, but as myself, not a historical figure, let's see how will I lead them?
Let us feel that we are actually guiding these tribes, each of them with different pluses and minuses, their own unique units, buildings, abilities, languages, city/people names, and so on. However, give us their roots and the uniqueness/flavour they in reality developed throughout their history, give me this stuff and I will never stop playing Civilization, the game.

Don't put your hopes up too much little friend... There will NEVER, you hear, NEVER be more uniques than in Civ5. They will always stay shy and marginal.

A way cleverer move would be to totally scrap them out if you ask me.

 

[Acken]

You fail to address the fact that if there are no unique you diminish replayability. Maybe not for you but for many players as expressed in your thread.

Also what you want is entirely possible in a mod.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You fail to address the fact that if there are no unique you diminish replayability. Maybe not for you but for many players as expressed in your thread.

Yes it disminishes replayability... theorically.
In practice, few players pick different civs in serious games.
Also, uniques aren't so sharp. The changes they operate on the gameplay is most of the time light or inconsistent. (as I said in the OP) And it won't change IMO.
The only way i see it changing is having different kinds of factions playing pretty much differently, like having civs, tribes, barbarians and city-states.

Also what you want is entirely possible in a mod.

Entirely ? You forget that there are still uniques. Do you have a mod that disacivate uniques and compensate by having new ideas ? (for example AIs that adapt more, instead of behaving mostly in the same general way all the time in every game and every situation)

 

[Browd]

In practice, few players pick different civs in serious games.

Really? I beg to differ.

 

[Acken]

Yes it disminishes replayability... theorically.
In practice, few players pick different civs in serious games.

What ?

Define serious games.

Entirely ? You forget that there are still uniques. Do you have a mod that disacivate uniques and compensate by having new ideas ? (for example AIs that adapt more, instead of behaving mostly in the same general way all the time in every game and every situation)

Key word was "possible". The mod doesn't exist because it's not a popular idea you ask for. But it's possible. Well you'd still be playing Civ5, mods can only get you so far.
AI that adapt more to what ? We all would like a better AI.

Obviously you could want an entirely different and complex system than simply removing uniques and at that point it's starting to ask for a different game. But people would still prefer some hard differences between who they pick.

 

[shaglio]

In practice, few players pick different civs in serious games.

Not only do I find this assertion highly doubtful, but even the players who do play the same civ over and over again in serious games do it so because of the uniques. Do you really think that someone who plays, say, China repeatedly, to hone their strategies and lower the turn time for their victory, does so because of the pretty green and white color combo and the Chinese city list? No, they choose China for the higher Great General generation, the Cho-Ku-No, and the Paper Maker. Therefore, uniques do in fact matter, whether to make the civs different from each other for replayablility or to give players a distinct advantage for their particular strategy.

EDIT: Any chance we can add a poll to this thread? Just a simple "Do you like Uniques? Yes/No" should suffice.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Civilization II practicly had no uniqueness, civilizatins were only different in name, color, and at most the first techs they started with iirc. No UU or UB.

Since civilization II the developers have only increased the amount of uniqueness with each new installement, and trought the years the civilization franshise has only become even more poppular.

So the obvious conclusion is that the market wants it, simple as that. Not nessecarily everyone, but the market as a whole.

 

[reddishrecue]

Civilization II practicly had no uniqueness, civilizatins were only different in name, color, and at most the first techs they started with iirc. No UU or UB.

Since civilization II the developers have only increased the amount of uniqueness with each new installement, and trought the years the civilization franshise has only become even more poppular.

So the obvious conclusion is that the market wants it, simple as that. Not nessecarily everyone, but the market as a whole.

True that and civilization before II also lacked uniqueness.

 

[cooldude1128]

* Diversity : most uniques are shy and are barely used ingame. Typical example : Civ5 Netherlands. Most of the time you will start without marshes or flood plains, or with few, therefore the impact on your gameplay will be very thin.

Multiple unique units, buildings, or abilities are as a matter of fact frequently used and useful. While some are less useful than others, for the most part they all play roles that happen to function either differently or better than the units they replace.

* Replayability : with false or theoric only diversity, you may not really care of what civ you are playing actually. Not to mention the fact that "game balance" and "developers work" should always keep those uniques small and inconsequent.
No uniques would most certainly not improve replayability; it would do the opposite. Look at Beyond Earth. Sponsors had very little national diversity in gameplay and ability, and it was a weak point of the game. Games can be balanced asymmetrically, too. Have you heard of Starcraft?

* Flavor : without uniques, you can incorporate in every civilization the flavor that have been part of history. Example : Civ2 Legions, Civ4 war elephants.

This is genuinely funny. Uniques actually increase the 'flavor' of civilization, as they represent specific areas the civilization excelled in or various major events that they took part in, e.g. Japan has a history of strong warriors that tended to fight until the last man died, and thus doesn't have a strength drop over damage. They also have a fairly large maritime culture and gain culture from fishing boats and atolls.

* No imbalance.

Balance ≠ Fun

It's perfectly possible to balance (to an acceptable degree) uniques. I think the game developers did pretty well on Civ5, after all.

* A lot more civilizations (all ? Past and present ?)

With what? Just new colors and flags, a leaderscreen? That's not a new civilization, that's a paintjob.

=> with unique city names and culturally linked starting locations that should be reintroduced : more roleplaying, everybody can actually incarnate its own country and feel really a lot more concerned by the game experience and recreating the history of its race.

This... What?
I would think historically accurate bonuses to areas the civilizations thrived in would improve role-playing.

* Advantages that have to be earned.

If everybody gains a free advantage, it's not an advantage, but it's funner. If nobody gets one and are all the same in a game like this, it's boring.

* Replayability : according to your mood you can try to recreate the history of whatever civilization you are pleased with without having to undergo its ingame specificities and particular gameplay advantages/disadvantages.

Again, this is completely false because most of the advantages are in areas the civilization happened to be good in.

* Gameplay choices : with new ideas you can have more choices as to become more a civ like Rome or Incas during the course of the game.

What kind of idiot switches tactics in the middle of a game?

Unless you're roleplaying, and if you were roleplaying again why would you spontaneously switch to another civ's playstyle?

 

[daft]

Civilization II practicly had no uniqueness, civilizatins were only different in name, color, and at most the first techs they started with iirc. No UU or UB.

Since civilization II the developers have only increased the amount of uniqueness with each new installement, and trought the years the civilization franshise has only become even more poppular.

So the obvious conclusion is that the market wants it, simple as that. Not nessecarily everyone, but the market as a whole.

This short, yet incredibly accurate post, describes the feelings of most Civilization V players. I fully expect not less but more uniqueness in regard to every possible aspect of each nation included in Civ VI. This would surely ensure great sales of the new game, whenever it comes out.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm in favor of AoE style unique tech trees but with more variation.

 

[ThorHammerz]

Civilization II practicly had no uniqueness, civilizatins were only different in name, color, and at most the first techs they started with iirc. No UU or UB.

Since civilization II the developers have only increased the amount of uniqueness with each new installement, and trought the years the civilization franshise has only become even more poppular.

So the obvious conclusion is that the market wants it, simple as that. Not nessecarily everyone, but the market as a whole.

Case in point for what a lack of uniqueness in game mechanics, and diversity in game elements can do for a game:

Just look at what Civ:BE offers (in comparison to Civ5, from which the entire goddamn game engine is re-used), and hence the resulting..... statistics in terms of player retention and game-hours spent (to the point where Firaxis resorted to promoting the game via an unlimited free-play weekend for the game).

 

[cooldude1128]

You know, I'd actually love it if the game had 5~ unique buildings, improvements, or units per civilization. (obviously far less improvements than units or buildings, though I do love improvement diversifying) Maybe somewhat more powerful unique abilities, too. To me, two uniques was barely enough in Civilization 4, and the leader traits were shared and not terribly unique. In Civilization 5, the Unique Abilities were better, and closer to what I wanted. Suppose it was a tradeoff with the static social policies, and I loved the few civilizations that had unique or pretty improvements. I try to make my empire as nice-looking as possible, I guess ;D

Point is diversity is a very good thing in my perspective and a lot of other people tend to agree, I should think.

 

[Naokaukodem]

There's a contradiction in the saying that uniques are futile and that they prevent to roleplay, granted. Maybe they are on the miffle of it ?

I bet on the fact that they are illusions. You feel obliged to take account of them, you feel all good with them (as this topic shows), but in the end they are not much of use.

Example : myself, i'm always taking Egypt, for its free temple giving +2 happiness. Because happiness is my main lack in that game. I can't envisage a game without Egypt, or a similar civ. (i heard there is a similar civ but i don't remember which one)
However, my happiness problems are the same. (see the rants topic)

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Isn't there an option to just turn off UAs and UUs?

This way, everyone will be happy...

How you want to play your game shld have no impact on how I want to play my game.

 

[Biologist]

Example : myself, i'm always taking Egypt, for its free temple giving +2 happiness. Because happiness is my main lack in that game. I can't envisage a game without Egypt, or a similar civ.

The solution to that is simple: take the plunge and start as a completely different civ. Pick Shoshone or France or Maya or whoever. If you can't figure out how to keep happiness up, come to forums and look up helpful threads, or start a new one. Try getting beliefs, or city state bonuses, or social policies to help combat the unhappiness. Every civ in the game is capable of producing an empire that doesn't constantly sink into unhappiness. Some need more luck than others to do this, but all of them can do it.