The Kingdom of Arabia is where Islam was founded, and is largely a desert, so why you wouldn't tie Faith and the desert to the civ is beyond me. It's like saying Jerusalem has no tie-in to Faith.
In retrospect, I'm perhaps intermixing them too much, but I don't think mixing them a little is a bad thing. Just like Byzantium was associated with state religion and they get an extra bonus for having one, the Arabs were the first and biggest spreaders of Islam. So having something that represents its spread isn't a bad thing.
However, Islam spread far beyond Arab borders and I realize I'm blurring the line between their spreading of Islam through trade and conquest and just the general spread of Islam through trade and conquest.
The Kingdom of Arabia is where Islam was founded, and is largely a desert, so why you wouldn't tie Faith and the desert to the civ is beyond me. It's like saying Jerusalem has no tie-in to Faith.
So you would have to make sure that not only the Arabs start in the desert area but the map has to include a desert area (regardless if you chose one that would not have such). And not only that, you would make sure they choose a hardcoded set of faith. Having a Start Bias is good but it does not nor should not be static or guaranteed. I've played the Arabs without building roads or needing oil, as well as Songhai without dealing with any barbarians, thus making those UA irrelevant by choice. We need more flexibility and variety (and the balance thereof) without forcing a predeterministic or predictable setting or outcome.
So you would have to make sure that not only the Arabs start in the desert area but the map has to include a desert area (regardless if you chose one that would not have such). And not only that, you would make sure they choose a hardcoded set of faith. Having a Start Bias is good but it does not nor should not be static or guaranteed. I've played the Arabs without building roads or needing oil, as well as Songhai without dealing with any barbarians, thus making those UA irrelevant by choice. We need more flexibility and variety (and the balance thereof) without forcing a predeterministic or predictable setting or outcome.
The same could be said for the Iroquois and forests, but they seem to work out just fine. The Celts are also said to be recieving Faith from forests, and there's no real argument over that. And the Byzantines get an extra Belief, essentially forcing you to go Faith or lose out on their UA.
The entire reason UAs exist is to create flavor for the civ and make you play them a certain way. They shouldn't be ultra restrictive and dictate your exact strategy, and I don't think they do currently. They just give a basic guideline. I don't see how giving Arabia a desert bias and a bonus from desert tiles is "predetermining the outcome" of the game.
It's kind of a quirk of Civilization games that a group of people are "born" with specific tendancies (unique abilities/units/buildings) that inclines them to interact with the world and its other inhabitants in a certain way. Sometimes I lament that I would rather see a civ's UA/UU/UB be determined by the random location in which they start rather than the civ's start location being preselected based on its tendancies.
England has a good navy because they are on an island, they are not on an island because they have a good navy. The Arabs have Camel Archers and bountiful oil because they are in a desert with lots of oil; they are not in the oil-rich desert because they like oil and camels.
However, I accept the game is how it is.
I would also like to mix and match my UU, UA, and UB. It would create some dramatically imbalanced games though. I remember playing custom games in Civ IV with Kublai Khan leading the Romans. That was a nice matchup.
It's kind of a quirk of Civilization games that a group of people are "born" with specific tendancies (unique abilities/units/buildings) that inclines them to interact with the world and its other inhabitants in a certain way. Sometimes I lament that I would rather see a civ's UA/UU/UB be determined by the random location in which they start rather than the civ's start location being preselected based on its tendancies.
England has a good navy because they are on an island, they are not on an island because they have a good navy. The Arabs have Camel Archers and bountiful oil because they are in a desert with lots of oil; they are not in the oil-rich desert because they like oil and camels.
However, I accept the game is how it is.
I would also like to mix and match my UU, UA, and UB. It would create some dramatically imbalanced games though. I remember playing custom games in Civ IV with Kublai Khan leading the Romans. That was a nice matchup.
I see what you are saying, but you have to have some kind of flavor for each civ.
Back on topic, you can't say the Arabs will be better than the Dutch. For comparison purposes:
Dutch:
1. Will have an extra luxury
2. Can use their bonus as soon as luxuries are linked
3. Don't require a building to use this ability
4. Are just as good as the Arabs when you have 1 copy of the luxury. In this case, a Dutch city and an Arab city with a bazaar would both have 1 luxury to trade without penalty. It is only when you have more than one copy of a luxury. For example, with 2 copies of the same luxury, the Dutch would have 2 resources to trade while the Arabs would have 3.
I would say the Dutch are definitely better in Trade (and presumably navy).
So, we have to boost the Arabs in Faith (and maybe military) to compensate.
It's kind of a quirk of Civilization games that a group of people are "born" with specific tendancies (unique abilities/units/buildings) that inclines them to interact with the world and its other inhabitants in a certain way. Sometimes I lament that I would rather see a civ's UA/UU/UB be determined by the random location in which they start rather than the civ's start location being preselected based on its tendancies.
England has a good navy because they are on an island, they are not on an island because they have a good navy. The Arabs have Camel Archers and bountiful oil because they are in a desert with lots of oil; they are not in the oil-rich desert because they like oil and camels.
The entire reason UAs exist is to create flavor for the civ and make you play them a certain way. They shouldn't be ultra restrictive and dictate your exact strategy, and I don't think they do currently. They just give a basic guideline. I don't see how giving Arabia a desert bias and a bonus from desert tiles is "predetermining the outcome" of the game.
I could see faith from Oases, though. That fits their pre-Islam pantheon which essentially located holy sites by an Oasis. IIRC, Mecca was one of these places. The Kaaba was originally a pagan source of worship.
Tell that to 250 million Indonesian muslims (the most of any country, and also the 4th most populous country in the world) who live entirely on tropical islands.
Tell that to 250 million Indonesian muslims (the most of any country, and also the 4th most populous country in the world) who live entirely on tropical islands.
It still would be possible to link UU / UB possesion to several conditions (being the first to research one/two technologies, plus having a resource or type of land in your empire, plus having built certain building)... maybe relaxed for the original owners of the UU / UB.
This would include additional "races" in the game, and risk some civilizations getting and edge over others.
But it could be compensated by allowing other players to research in less time once the UU/UB is assigned (i.e. you get Legions if you are the first to reach Iron Working and build a Swordsman in a city with Barracks) - yet after you get assigned the Legion, iron working and/or swordsman cost is reduced by 10-20% (which is the plus you paid to have the UU/UB). Rome could start with these discounts already applied, so it is easy for them to get the Legion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
