Do you prefer Civ IV's traits or Civ V's unique abilities and what'd you prefer in VI

[stealth_nsk]

How does a single unique ability per civ give "more different strategies, more replay ability?" You're being railroaded to play each civ in a specific way and if you don't you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.

If you put it that way, civs3-4 have 1 way to play for ALL civs.

Actually Civ5 civ abilities differ significantly. For example:
- Poland have very generic bonus, which doesn't restrain gameplay at all, but allows strategies you normally can't use, i.e. by adding 1 more policy tree.
- Huns let you try otherwise completely weak approach of early conquest.
- Indonesia ability encourages island settlement, but otherwise it fits all strategies.
And so on.

So yes, unique Civ allows more different strategies and more replayability.

 

[Camikaze]

How does a single unique ability per civ give "more different strategies, more replay ability?" You're being railroaded to play each civ in a specific way and if you don't you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Because there are dozens of civs. Sure, each civ lends itself to a particular strategy, so if you are confining yourself to that one civ the optimal strategy will almost always in some way involve that one particular UA. But the possibility to play as either Venice or Babylon offers far more variety than playing around with a more limited number of fairly bland traits. Crucially, except in rare cases such as Venice, neither UAs nor traits actually restrict your possibilities; you can play Babylon without pursuing Great Scientists if you want, it will just be a harder game. That Civ4 might have more replayability might be true, but attributing that to the difference between UAs and traits is counter-intuitive, when UAs clearly provide more variety than traits.

 

[Oerdin]

Civ 4 all the way.

 

[Kid R]

UAs clearly provide more variety than traits.

I'd phrase it as UAs providing more clear variety. The Civ 4 traits had more subtle variety, with less obvious effects but hooking more flexibly into the game mechanics.

 

[stealth_nsk]

One of the things to consider is - the civilization abilities affect not only civ you're playing for, but also civs you're playing against. There are some balance issues with this in Civ5, like you don't want to start near Huns or as Greece you don't want to see Austria, Venice and Mongols in your game, but overall the replayability is greatly increased by the fact what you may face really different civs in different games.

 

[ferros]

What I liked about Civ4s system was that you could play most, if not all, Civs the way you wanted or had to depending on your starting location. You, almost, never had to simply restart the game because you "got the wrong leader". When I have played Civ5 I often feel forced to play a certain way because of the Civ/leader I got and there are some Civs I just do not want to play because of this. I do not want to be even more forced to play certain ways in Civ6 because of which Civ/leader I get, I want to have - at least - a few choices! Civ5s system also makes the replability almost 0, because everytime you play a Civ then you have played it the one way it was supposed to be played, which - at least to me - is very boring in the long run. It's just a few Civs in Civ5 that I have played more than once and a lot of them that I have never even bothered to try, more than just to see them, because of this.

Uniqueness is awesome, to a point. I think the idea behind what Civ5 did was great but they implented it in a way that I like Civ4s system way more. In Civ6 I hope that they can take what they had done good in Civ4, add it to what was good with Civ5 and then mash it together somehow.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What I liked about Civ4s system was that you could play most, if not all, Civs the way you wanted or had to depending on your starting location. You, almost, never had to simply restart the game because you "got the wrong leader". When I have played Civ5 I often feel forced to play a certain way because of the Civ/leader I got and there are some Civs I just do not want to play because of this. I do not want to be even more forced to play certain ways in Civ6 because of which Civ/leader I get, I want to have - at least - a few choices! Civ5s system also makes the replability almost 0, because everytime you play a Civ then you have played it the one way it was supposed to be played, which - at least to me - is very boring in the long run. It's just a few Civs in Civ5 that I have played more than once and a lot of them that I have never even bothered to try, more than just to see them, because of this.

Uniqueness is awesome, to a point. I think the idea behind what Civ5 did was great but they implented it in a way that I like Civ4s system way more. In Civ6 I hope that they can take what they had done good in Civ4, add it to what was good with Civ5 and then mash it together somehow.

I don't think the choice of civilization and leader is actually a choice. Some are stronger, some are weaker, but that's just an addition to difficulty level selection. The actual change of strategy is minimal and mostly related to unique units/buildings, not the leader traits.

So, IMHO, if you want a choice, the Civ5 system is a way better.

 

[masda_gib]

I would like a mix between CiVs unique abilities and some unique traits that are chosen in the first stages of gameplay (early ages).

These traits should be powerfull but limited in numbers. A bit like CiV religion. You could choose 2-3 traits and not more.

So your base unique ability and 1-2 developed ones define your civ in this one match.

 

[Lexicus]

Or just plain awful, like in the case of the Mongols.

If anything, their UA was actually counter-productive because to make use of it you had to conquer city-states, which always torpedoed your reputation with other leaders.

They also got +1 movement to mounted units which was pretty cool though

 

[Teproc]

Or just plain awful, like in the case of the Mongols.

If anything, their UA was actually counter-productive because to make use of it you had to conquer city-states, which always torpedoed your reputation with other leaders.

People repeat this over and over again, and it doesn't become more accurate with repetition.

The UA doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's part of the whole civ. The CS stuff is irrelevant mostlly, what matters are Keshiks+Khan+movement bonus. That combination is extremely synergistic, flavorful, and powerful. The Mongols are actually one of the best designs in CiV...

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

People repeat this over and over again, and it doesn't become more accurate with repetition.

The UA doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's part of the whole civ. The CS stuff is irrelevant mostlly, what matters are Keshiks+Khan+movement bonus. That combination is extremely synergistic, flavorful, and powerful. The Mongols are actually one of the best designs in CiV...

But in order to play them efficiently, you MUST go early war and keep warring. Otherwise you've basically chosen a civ that has no bonuses whatsoever. This is good design for synergy with one particular style (early warmongering), bad for variety of play. That being said, I am of the thought that not everything needs to be done for variety sake. But at the same time I do want some options for play style without having to go inefficiently about it (that is to say, completely wasting a civ's uniques). That's why I like the idea of a blending of traits and unique ability. Maybe the trait isn't static but selectable upon seeing the map generation. But not limited like religions in Civ 5 where once the trait is selected it is no longer available. Allow multiple Civs to select the same trait if they want. Perhaps make it part of an early Tech like Writing so that you can uncover part of the map and see which trait you wish to go with.

 

[dexters]

I voted
Something totally different (explained in post)



I feel like Civ4 traits was a carry over from Civ3, which was the first attempt in Civ differentiating the different Civs in-game. Come to think of it, Civ3 was really revolutionary to the franchise, introducing culture, borders, national treasury, small 'national' wonders, nationality, unique units, the now standard 'Civ trade table' , and.. Civ traits.

Civ5 unique abilities means the developers could craft a trait unique to that Civ. You could for example not have a reasonable representation of Venice with just the trait system. Because they would end up playing just like everyone else.

The unique improvements is also a result of the unique abilities system, which adds a lot to the Civs. The Incas are one of my favorite Civ in Civ5, because they are so dependent on terrain with lots of mountains with hills. This dependency on terrain is new. Yes, we had city specialization based on food vs. production vs. commerce tiles/bonus resources before, but to actually found an empire around food hills is unique.

I also feel like the trait system, especially if they stick to 2 traits per Civ, is very limiting. For some Civs, it is fine, but what traits do we give to Venice? Financial & Imperialistic?

That could just as well define the British Empire or the Americans and they're worlds apart in terms of their history and the kinds of 'empires' each owned.

So I propose a hybrid. Keep the Civ5 unique traits that is totally unique and crafted for each Civ.
But also add a special 'leader' trait that pulls from a pool of traits. This leader trait can be 1 trait or a combination of 2.

Each civ should also have a more formalized 3 unique things, it can be a combination of UU, UB and UI

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

... I propose a hybrid. Keep the Civ5 unique traits that is totally unique and crafted for each Civ.
But also add a special 'leader' trait that pulls from a pool of traits. This leader trait can be 1 trait or a combination of 2.

Each civ should also have a more formalized 3 unique things, it can be a combination of UU, UB and UI

So, basically, you would add a 'trait' that is one more limiting factor that encourages you to play a civilization spanning thousands of years all according to the attributes of a single leader.

Bald-R-Dash

Call them Uniques or Traits or Cornucopia of Critical Colossal Combinations, but let them be selectable based on the civilization's progress through that particular game:

Mongols on a set of islands do not have to have Keshiks that they have no room to use.

You can play Germany as the Intellectual-Scientific German of the late 19th century, or the expansionist Germans of the Roman-Opposing tribes or the early 20th century - depending on the game and your preference.

Each civilization should have a number of Uniques that are peculiar to that civilization, based on its 'real' history - but the gamer should NOT be forced to try to try to use them in a game in which the 'real' history does not in any way apply or occur. For that, there should be a number of 'generic' abilities that can be chosen based on the actions in the game, combined with civilization-particular uniques or traits that may be adopted if applicable.

Finding new ways to straitjacket the nominal 'civilizations' or the player in the game is counter-productive. The limitations of the entire Unique system are eloquently shown by the number of 'alternate uniques' that the Mod Community has come up with for various civilizations in Civ V: if they can derive 7 different 'Russias' (including the Grand Duchy of Muscovy and Three different variations of the Soviet Union!), 3 different 'Romes', and an entire panoply of Indian' states/civilizations, then all over-riding 'unique' factors or traits are simply limiting, not enabling.

Away with both 'Traits' and 'Uniques' that define a civilization arbitrarily - give the Gamer the chance to define the civilization by the way each individual game proceeds, from the influence of the starting position through the terrain, neighbors, resources, technologies pursued, and Social Policies and religious policies adopted.

 

[dexters]

Away with both 'Traits' and 'Uniques' that define a civilization arbitrarily - give the Gamer the chance to define the civilization by the way each individual game proceeds, from the influence of the starting position through the terrain, neighbors, resources, technologies pursued, and Social Policies and religious policies adopted.

Given the 3 choices in the poll, I was suggesting I didn't like just traits and wouldn't mind traits layered in on top of unqiue abilities to balance out each of the Civs some more. What these traits actually are (they well could be 5 free units every turn for all I know) will depend on the overall balance and design of the game, but I'm speaking at a very high level.

As for the quoted point above, It does sound like that is where they are going, with tech development contingent on your start. So a mongols on an island start would still have equal footing with another Civ. Because they will get discounts on all the naval techs and could field a Navy just as well but with a Mongol twist (presumably)

But that doesn't preclude unique abilities or traits. Your examples with Keshiks are a UU issue, and we've known forever some UUs are more useful than others, which is why later Civ games added UB and UI to try and balance those things out. I don't see why traits wouldn't do the same. A Civ with a weaker UU may be made up for with a stronger trait and ability.

I don't see a contradiction here at all. Maybe I just don't feel as strongly as you do, but I can see a start oriented naturalistic progression working hand in hand with traits and abilities.

Ultimately, we still need something to differentiate the Civs.

 

[AriochIV]

One thing I did like about Civ IV starting choices was the different starting technologies. In Civ IV the first 4-5 technologies you picked really impacted early gameplay, so which tech you started with actually mattered. Earlier workers, needing tech for Scouts, and the Religion race made early tech choices much more impactful. (Unlike in Civ V, wherein the early gameplay is mostly the same regardless of what order your first 4-5 techs are researched in.)

 

[Monado]

One thing I did like about Civ IV starting choices was the different starting technologies. In Civ IV the first 4-5 technologies you picked really impacted early gameplay, so which tech you started with actually mattered. Earlier workers, needing tech for Scouts, and the Religion race made early tech choices much more impactful. (Unlike in Civ V, wherein the early gameplay is mostly the same regardless of what order your first 4-5 techs are researched in.)

I completely agree with this. Lets hope early game tech choices are much more important this time around.

 

[Zaarin]

One thing I did like about Civ IV starting choices was the different starting technologies. In Civ IV the first 4-5 technologies you picked really impacted early gameplay, so which tech you started with actually mattered. Earlier workers, needing tech for Scouts, and the Religion race made early tech choices much more impactful. (Unlike in Civ V, wherein the early gameplay is mostly the same regardless of what order your first 4-5 techs are researched in.)

Agreed. Along with random events, that is among the very few things I miss from Civ4.

 

[Tatran]

Come to think of it, Civ3 was really revolutionary to the franchise, introducing...

No, SMAC was.
Civics had a bigger impact and it gave with a diplomatic bonus with some leaders too. (favourite civic)
The policy system was interesting, but most of them were weak and I found it annoying to have to adopt several other policies to get the one I really wanted.
No more UAs right from the start. A civ's uniqueness should develop through the game made by the player's decisions.

 

[LDiCesare]

Unique units and buildings are already differentiating civs. Putting another layer on top doesn't matter much.
I actually liked it better in civ I/II when there were no UU, but know I'm in the minority. So in that case, I'd rather be able to choose my leader and traits because I may disagree wiht the view civ designers have of the civilization I want to play, and don't like that they chose one trait of the civ to make it major when I'd rather pick a different one.

 

[Valmighty]

I prefer unique abilities for civilization and shared traits for the leaders.