Best unique ability?

[Antarion]

you call continents without raging barbarians specific set up?

 

[Spark026]

mate you have no clue about the game, do you? stop playing your pangea matches and u will see how elisabeth will shine.

every nation is of course more then their UA and none of them sucks completly. my favour nation is even england, their high mobility as soon as you get optics is such a big advantage (im talking about embarked units ofc). just build few cities like every tradition nation (imho best suited tree first for england) and grab enough land from your COASTAL cities, max 1 out of 4 cities is a non-coastal one.
then grab your longbow men and old off enemies from far away and try to take without any casualities an enemy city (range 3 is better then any city bombardement).
and never forget to abuse your fast movement along the shores in early game. you dont need horsemen when your longbowmen can move 4 tiles across the sea even before the steam engine.

Are you just a big England fan? Cause your comments have absolutely nothing to do with the game...

Horseman...you know the unit you can build like 150turn before longbowmen(epic time), absolutely destroys them, so I fail to see why you would use longbowmen, unless you just want to get the same job done 2 times slower.

Secondly, while longbowmen are actually good on defense, why are you playing defense in the first place? Before you even tech for longbowmen, you've probably eradicated everyone on continent No.1, if you know how to play at all.

Thirdly, if you play standard continent map, it takes 3-5 turns to cross the ocean. Navy plays no role in this as you will cross the ocean with your force, land, and be there for the duration. A) Your not at war when you cross B) The AI probably doesn't have a navy anyway C) If it was actually a problem(1:1000000), you could simply sail around the less than stellar AI.

 

[Ahriman]

Some balance suggestions to improve underpowered abilities:

Askia: Keeps ability. Units get no river crossing penalty.
Augustus: +50% production bonus instead of +25%
Bismarck: Loses ability. Gets Wirtschaftswunder instead: +1 Production for each resource.
Catherine: Keeps ability, also gets "Scorched Earth": Enemy units are weakened in Russian territory.
Elizabeth: Land and Sea units get +1 movement.
Gandhi: Half unhappiness from population. Normal unhappiness from number of cities.
Harun al-Rashid: +2 Gold from trade routes
Hiawatha: Keeps ability. Melee and Gunpowder units get Drill I.
Suleiman: Can assimilate barbarian land units as well.
Washington: Keeps ability. Naval units get +1 sight, just as land units.

Augustus: broken.
Elizabeth: +1 movement for all land units? Broken.
Ghandi: broken, already one of the best abilities.
Hiawatha: broken (especially on top of the amazing Longhouse UB).

 

[andrewlt]

Ghandi's ability is meh once you realize keeping happiness above 0 is easy to do, even for 100+ city empires.

Ever wondered why hospitals/med labs were gotten so late in the game? Its to help maintain the population in cities around the 10-15 mark. What is the significance of that mark you may wonder? 15 happens to be the maximum amount of happiness you gain from buildings. So even before luxuries, SPs, natural wonders, and city wonders come into the equation, you should be able to maintain positive happiness just from happiness buildings alone.

Basically, Ghandi's ability is only useful for large empires with a hospital/med lab in every city. Or saving a couple gold from not having to build all the happiness buildings. Meh.

You can get golden ages from happiness, you know. And I'm pretty sure unhappiness from number of cities is only 1, so Gandhi's UA breaks even at 2 pop. If it's 2 unhappiness, it breaks even at 4 pop. It's an awesome UA, since you can easily grow cities by bribing maritime city-states.

 

[Celevin]

I'm baffled by all the Greece votes. They are nowhere near the top, even with how good their units are early game.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Well, but you have to admit that playing Greece saves you twice as much money on exploiting City-States, combined with Patronage and as you said overpowered Companion Cavalry it makes quite an impression.

I still respect China or India's abilities more, but Greece is definitely up there amongst the strong ones imo.

 

[Rathelon]

Second thread I've opened where Cyrus was named the Persian leader. It's Darius in this version, not Cyrus.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Second thread I've opened where Cyrus was named the Persian leader. It's Darius in this version, not Cyrus.

Hey, come on, it took me a while to stop calling Japanese leader Tokugawa...

 

[rune42]

You can get golden ages from happiness, you know. And I'm pretty sure unhappiness from number of cities is only 1, so Gandhi's UA breaks even at 2 pop. If it's 2 unhappiness, it breaks even at 4 pop. It's an awesome UA, since you can easily grow cities by bribing maritime city-states.

Allow me to illustrate a point with the following example of my current game on Emperor:

Spoiler :

Current happiness: 83
Current number of cities: 16
Current happiness from buildings: 117
Current Maritime City States: 3

Before circus and burial tombs, the maximum amount of potential happiness I can acquire from buildings is 208(including wonders like the hanging garden and eiffel tower).

With burial tombs, the max becomes 240.

In other words, I can gain another 123 happiness points on top of my existing 83 for a grand total of 206. That's 206 happiness before my empirewide population reaches a softcap.

Now, this does not mean I can only gain 206 more population. I currently have -20% unhappiness from population, -50% unhappiness per specialist, and -33% unhappiness in the capitol. In other words, even if my 16 cities suddenly gained another 206 more population, I'd still have a large amount of excess happiness. Possibly over 100 more.

And if I went down the Liberty tree, i'd gain another +16 happiness(I have more than enough time before 2050 AD to grab Meritocracy).

And i'm not restricted to 16 cities either. The more cities I have, the bigger my excess happiness. Its the complete opposite of what the current community thinks of how happiness and empire size works.

In summary, happiness is a joke. Gandhi's ability is only good for increasing excess happiness, or saving a bunch of gold. Its great for new players who haven't grasped the game's mechanics yet, but otherwise its an average ability at best.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Allow me to illustrate a point with the following example of my current game on Emperor:

Spoiler :

Current happiness: 83
Current number of cities: 16
Current happiness from buildings: 117
Current Maritime City States: 3

Before circus and burial tombs, the maximum amount of potential happiness I can acquire from buildings is 208(including wonders like the hanging garden and eiffel tower).

With burial tombs, the max becomes 240.

In other words, I can gain another 123 happiness points on top of my existing 83 for a grand total of 206. That's 206 happiness before my empirewide population reaches a softcap.

Now, this does not mean I can only gain 206 more population. I currently have -20% unhappiness from population, -50% unhappiness per specialist, and -33% unhappiness in the capitol. In other words, even if my 16 cities suddenly gained another 206 more population, I'd still have a large amount of excess happiness. Possibly over 100 more.

And if I went down the Liberty tree, i'd gain another +16 happiness(I have more than enough time before 2050 AD to grab Meritocracy).

And i'm not restricted to 16 cities either. The more cities I have, the bigger my excess happiness. Its the complete opposite of what the current community thinks of how happiness and empire size works.

In summary, happiness is a joke. Gandhi's ability is only good for increasing excess happiness, or saving a bunch of gold. Its great for new players who haven't grasped the game's mechanics yet, but otherwise its an average ability at best.

Ok, I agree but that's an end game. It's what happens during the early-mid-late game that matters. Like when you have no more trading partners 'cause they all declared on you and your conquered cities are underdeveloped while your empire is too small to have lot of luxuries available.
Emperor in Civ5 is still Prince in Civ4 standards. Try Immortal/Deity and see what happens.

PS. And besides lucky you for playing Egypt since puppet states will always build temples, so you have extra +2 from each city, it adds up.

 

[rune42]

Ok, I agree but that's an end game. It's what happens during the early-mid-late game that matters. Like when you have no more trading partners 'cause they all declared on you and your conquered cities are underdeveloped while your empire is too small to have lot of luxuries available.
Emperor in Civ5 is still Prince in Civ4 standards. Try Immortal/Deity and see what happens.

PS. And besides lucky you for playing Egypt since puppet states will always build temples, so you have extra +2 from each city, it adds up.

The early game makes Gandhi's UA even weaker. Your pop isn't high enough to offset the unhappiness gained from a city. And the mid game is where Gandhi's UA breaks even.

PS: Subtract -32 happiness from the current amount. I still end up with over 50 excess happiness.

PSS: I still have 317 turns left before 2050 AD, so it isn't even close to end game.

 

[Celevin]

Allow me to illustrate a point with the following example of my current game on Emperor:

Why do I feel like you could have a better empire if you built more cities, or got more food for your current ones? What's the rest of the map like?

Even in the end game with gobs of happiness buildings and policies, I'm sitting near 0 happiness.

 

[Guardian_PL]

The early game makes Gandhi's UA even weaker. Your pop isn't high enough to offset the unhappiness gained from a city. And the mid game is where Gandhi's UA breaks even.

PS: Subtract -32 happiness from the current amount. I still end up with over 50 excess happiness.

PSS: I still have 317 turns left before 2050 AD, so it isn't even close to end game.

Obviously to each their own, but I personally never got Time victory. 1843 is pretty much endgame in my book, and it looks like that to me on your screenshot too, what with your whole huge continent cleared and bazillion cities pumping hammers, culture and gold you can have any type of win you want, at latest in 1950 you'll either buy all City States, build Utopia Project or fly to space.

And I didn't mean like start of the game either, let's say Indian UA shines from 2000BC (early by my standards) to 1800AD (late in my standards), and bear in mind that on your screenshot thanks to Forbidden Palace and some other thing you have 0 from the amount of cities. So India will have full-length GA very often regardless of the size of their empire ^^


EDIT
Also, if you want me to start substracting let's not forget to substract 2 for each city with Burial Tomb you have, quick look tells me it'd be something like 30 from Burial Tombs alone. Yes Egypt is a strong civ to play

 

[evanbgood]

Not much love for the great warpath or manifest destiny, it seems. I suppose I have other favorites myself, but I did have a lot of fun with these two. The whole forest theme of warpath makes for a really interesting and unique experience, while the scouting advantages of manifest destiny made for some great early finds, and some very safe warfare later on. All of them seem pretty wonderfully balanced, just needing a few tweaks here and there. I think the ottomans are one sea-based buff away from balance.

 

[BarbarianArcher]

I love Bismarck. Three Brutes+Enemy Capital=Two Early Cities.
Plus, you explore faster. And find more worthless targets along the way.

 

[rune42]

Why do I feel like you could have a better empire if you built more cities, or got more food for your current ones? What's the rest of the map like?

Even in the end game with gobs of happiness buildings and policies, I'm sitting near 0 happiness.

Its almost all covered in trading posts. Thats what the the other Civs built.
I also didn't build a single city. They were all conquered.

Obviously to each their own, but I personally never got Time victory. 1843 is pretty much endgame in my book, and it looks like that to me on your screenshot too, what with your whole huge continent cleared and bazillion cities pumping hammers, culture and gold you can have any type of win you want, at latest in 1950 you'll either buy all City States, build Utopia Project or fly to space.

And I didn't mean like start of the game either, let's say Indian UA shines from 2000BC (early by my standards) to 1800AD (late in my standards), and bear in mind that on your screenshot thanks to Forbidden Palace and some other thing you have 0 from the amount of cities. So India will have full-length GA very often regardless of the size of their empire ^^


EDIT
Also, if you want me to start substracting let's not forget to substract 2 for each city with Burial Tomb you have, quick look tells me it'd be something like 30 from Burial Tombs alone. Yes Egypt is a strong civ to play

You were talking about how I had a huge advantage by being Egypt. I explained to you how even without burial tombs, i'd still be above 50 happiness. I'm not sure why you're bringing up forbidden palace + order SP. Every civ has access to them.

Since happiness does not keep filling up the GA meter if you are in a GA, India gets about 1 more GA compared to other civs. And that 1 more GA comes well past 1800 AD, the time you consider to be end game. And lets not forget that GA from happiness doesn't even account for half the total number of GA turns you get in a game.

You won't break 15 pop in most of your cities by 1843 AD without hospitals + medlabs, or getting a lucky map with 6+ maritime city states. So, if 1843 is end game to you, Gandhi's ability isn't doing much of anything.

 

[Guardian_PL]

You were talking about how I had a huge advantage by being Egypt. I explained to you how even without burial tombs, i'd still be above 50 happiness. I'm not sure why you're bringing up forbidden palace + order SP. Every civ has access to them.

Since happiness does not keep filling up the GA meter if you are in a GA, India gets about 1 more GA compared to other civs. And that 1 more GA comes well past 1800 AD, the time you consider to be end game. And lets not forget that GA from happiness doesn't even account for half the total number of GA turns you get in a game.

You won't break 15 pop in most of your cities by 1843 AD without hospitals + medlabs, or getting a lucky map with 6+ maritime city states. So, if 1843 is end game to you, Gandhi's ability isn't doing much of anything.

Sorry, somehow I took that 32 you've mentioned as what India would gain on top - it's late at night here, my mistake
Even so, in my mind India's UA is very versatile and useful - with it instead of Freedom or Liberty you can go for Rationalism, and still have enough excess hapiness while teching like crazy. Also, for me it's very common to hover around -20 to -50 during the conquest era, and India''s UA would keep my empire productive and combat penaltyless (my what a word I've used :/). That and ability to sell all your luxuries to AI 'cause you don't need them count as big bonus to me.

And I've mentioned Forbidden Palace and order SP because with it offsets from number of cities completely, so the only negative from India's UA evaporates.

Sounds pretty strong to me, but it's my opinion only of course (though like I said China's UA in this bloodbath warmongering game is best imo). Which one is best to you then? You've mentioned bunch of them on the first page, but if it would be one only? What makes you think so? I'm curious what your opinion is.

 

[rune42]

Sorry, somehow I took that 32 you've mentioned as what India would gain on top - it's late at night here, my mistake
Even so, in my mind India's UA is very versatile and useful - with it instead of Freedom or Liberty you can go for Rationalism, and still have enough excess hapiness while teching like crazy. Also, for me it's very common to hover around -20 to -50 during the conquest era, and India''s UA would keep my empire productive and combat penaltyless (my what a word I've used :/). That and ability to sell all your luxuries to AI 'cause you don't need them count as big bonus to me.

And I've mentioned Forbidden Palace and order SP because with it offsets from number of cities completely, so the only negative from India's UA evaporates.

Sounds pretty strong to me, but it's my opinion only of course (though like I said China's UA in this bloodbath warmongering game is best imo). Which one is best to you then? You've mentioned bunch of them on the first page, but if it would be one only? What makes you think so? I'm curious what your opinion is.

Unfortunately, Civilopedia is wrong. Forbidden palace + order sp doesn't offset India's city unhappiness completely. They only reduce it by 1 each. So you'd still need to pay 2 happiness per city, whereas other civs pay 0 happiness per city.

As for single best UA... I can't pick only one. They all take advantage of overpowered aspects of the game, soooo... fix the overpowered aspect and their UA comes crashing down.

 

[syllogism]

Unfortunately, Civilopedia is wrong. Forbidden palace + order sp doesn't offset India's city unhappiness completely. They only reduce it by 1 each. So you'd still need to pay 2 happiness per city, whereas other civs pay 0 happiness per city.

No, it's 1 per city. It's 2 per city before any modifiers.

 

[rune42]

No, it's 1 per city. It's 2 per city before any modifiers.

Not in my games(unmodded).

Base city unhappiness is 2.
India increases it by 2.
One of the Order SP reduces it by 1.
Forbidden Palace reduces it by 1.

India pays 2 after modifiers, other civs pay 0.