"The bolded part already is that way. Now, I am not big on the UU based on leader. But I don't see how this is "imbalanced". Currently 1 leader = 1 UU. Period. And this proposed idea of UU based off of leader choice does not change this. As to the part in parenthesis, if Firaxis made sure to balance the UUs then you wouldn't have that problem."
True, it is already made so that certain civilizations get more play than others, but if each leaderhead had a unique unit, the "a certain civilization getting more play" would basically narrow down to "a certain leader getting more play". As it stands now, some people might like Victoria and some people might like Elizabeth (I'm no fan of Churchill's traits, but some people might like to use him, as well), but if the Redcoat only belonged to one of them, then the unique unit of the other two might just not be very good. So you'd go from having different popularity amongst the English leaderheads to everybody always playing just one - the one with the stronger unique unit. The same would hold true for Rome. Some people might like Augustus, and some might like Julius, but when only one gets the praetorian, the other one is going to suddenly be no fun to play as (unless his unique unit is just as good, but it really can't be since the praetorian is already probably the best unique unit in the game). It would basically come down to that if a new expansion were to come out with additional leaderheads, nobody would really care or be excited because people will stick with their leaderhead with the best unique unit of that particular civilization.
"Additionally, your arguement has done a 180 antagonistically."
I'm not really seeing the turnaround there, so you'll have to explain that one to me. What I was saying by that the game isn't historically representative is that you control a particular nation and do whatever you want. So England won't be a country on an island, for example, and Zululand might end up being a huge democratic nation. My second paragraph doesn't really relate to the first paragraph that you quoted for this cause, because my second paragraph was pointing out that they only take historic unique buildings and historic unique units. I did say as much in the first paragraph that you quoted when I said I did the flip. So... sorry, but you'll have to explain that one to me.
"But the problem is, it is broken. Unless you can tell me exactly how situation dependant unique units such as the jaguar, panzer, or Navy Seal can be compared on equal ground to the very versatile and very game influencing units like the Praetorians or Redcoats that additionally have no counter."
I certainly cannot argue with you there. A good three-fourths of the unique units are absolutely useless, in my opinion. Certain unique units are just in every way overpowered, like the praetorians, and I do think that these units need to be toned down all the while beefing up some other unique units. Balance is maintained somewhat, however, in the addition of unique buildings. I do not particularly find the forum building to be that good, because it only speeds up population growth, and thus, unhealthiness and unhappiness (which isn't bad, I suppose, if you're going to just whip them anyway), though others may like it. I also don't find the Stock Exchange building to be that great, because the additional +15% wealth probably doesn't mean a lot in comparison to the normal bank. Sometimes you might want to pick a civilization just for a unique building, rather than the unique unit. My brother, for example, loves to pick Montezuma due to his sacrificial altar (he's a big fan of whipping people), despite the fact that his unique unit sucks. In this case, balance is maintained. I have to agree, however, that some civilizations get two slaps in the face, such as America with their Navy Seal and their mall, both of which come far too late to be any good (and aren't good once when you get them).
"I personally think that every Civilization should get 1 UU per every 2 eras. This gives them 3. Their first one will be in the Ancient-Classical Eras. Their second Medieval-Rennessaince. Their third Industrial-Modern."
Again, though, this goes back to... what unique unit could the Aztecs possibly have beyond the classical era? Even if you look into Mexican culture, I don't think you'd find a very good industrial or modern era unique unit for the Aztecs. I guess the only thing that comes to mind would be some sort of Alamo gunslinger - I'm not sure if those soldiers had a specific name, though.
"We all know early warfare is crucial and early UUs benefit a civ greatly in game deciding ways. Granting each Civilization a UU for each era adds real balance to the system. Plus, they do need to tone down some of the UUs in the game already and beef up some others."
I can agree with you on the balance so long as one civilization doesn't get stuck with a bunch of bad units, similar to the America situation with the mall and the Navy Seal. The only problem is finding late unique units for civilizations that no longer exist (not on a map, at least) and for finding early unique units for civilizations that are relatively new. America, for example, couldn't begin having unique units until you research gunpowder (I suppose America might have been using musketmen compared to England's riflemen at the time). I mean, if their unique unit was something like, "American Caveman," as a unique warrior, then that would just be uh... I'll go with the word "humorous"...
Haha, sorry if I seem "gloomy", I'm just saying that such an update is never going to happen. I can see that it is nice to always dream, but an update like this wouldn't make a ton of sense, and even if we did all think of a brilliant and perfect way to work it out, it wouldn't happen... I realize we don't expect it to happen (or most of us probably realize that), but you always need a "grouch" like me in an argument to defend the side with less popularity, heh.
Help?
