Nathiri
Commander
I'm actually not much of a fan of civ5. I much prefer civ3. I agree civ5's uniques are bit weird and has too much of an effect for that civ. But I dont think the whole concept should be removed altogether.
How do you think Civ VI should handle Uniques?
- Thread starter nonshinyespeon
- Start date
I'm actually not much of a fan of civ5. I much prefer civ3. I agree civ5's uniques are bit weird and has too much of an effect for that civ. But I dont think the whole concept should be removed altogether.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Well, but civs should still have a historical connection. So, yes, Romans do need to have "roman legion" units. Civs should have unique units that relate to real history so that the player feels that they are playing a specific historic civ.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
The alternative is either Civ 2, where everybody got 'legions', or a convoluted process where the requirements for 'legion' unit are so specific that you have to turn your civilization into a simulacrum of historical Rome to get them. Unique Units by Civ, but not required so you can forego them if the game situation requires/suggests it, are the better way to go.
If, on the other hand, you'd prefer a 'blank slate' in which everything about the Civilization is the result of Gamer Decisions, then the game will have to start with hunter-gatherers in 100,000 BCE, because by a 4000 BCE start date people's technologies and locations have already precluded or 'weighted' some of their decisions...
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,953
Uniques are illusions. Every time you start a new game, you feel like you will choose a different civilization and everything will be particular, with no link with what you've played before. While it's pretty close of reality with unique civilizations like Venice (concept that should be digged to the point to propose to play "City-States" by major AIs and players), it's far to be true with 99% of the civilizations you can choose from.
When the game starts, very few elements, if not absolutely none, could indeed confirming that you are playing that particular civilization, to the point you should be able to see again your abilities ingame in order to not forget them.
All in all, unique abilities are here for flavor : it's nice to see chateaux when conquering France, or terraces when conquering Inca (?), but it would be nicer if this kind of flavor would be more present.
We need graphical representation in order to really feel the different abilities. And it's most of the time not the case. When it's the case, with unique units (and their affiliated icons), it's just during a particular laps of time, and then it vanishes.
So the subjective point of view is really not an argument to promote uniques. There is the objective point of view though, when you see the whole map early and can guess the behavior of whatever civilization by just looking at its color. But as i said, it's only an occasion to tchat on forums, like making jokes on Gandhi bias towards nuclear weapons.
Giant Death Robots proves also that developers love forums. Because their name, and even design, gameplay power, come from a joke on those very forums. It was fun, don't get me wrong, but I think that developers should concentrate on improving the core game instead of paying attention to such futilities.
Futilities like uniques. They lure a lot of players. They think there will be differences, but ingame the games unfold majorly due to the map configuration, just as always. They are so lured by them that when someone (me
) proposes to remove them, they are becoming aggressive. Developers should definitely not caution such aggressive behavior.
What's important here have been said here I believe.
When the game starts, very few elements, if not absolutely none, could indeed confirming that you are playing that particular civilization, to the point you should be able to see again your abilities ingame in order to not forget them.
All in all, unique abilities are here for flavor : it's nice to see chateaux when conquering France, or terraces when conquering Inca (?), but it would be nicer if this kind of flavor would be more present.
We need graphical representation in order to really feel the different abilities. And it's most of the time not the case. When it's the case, with unique units (and their affiliated icons), it's just during a particular laps of time, and then it vanishes.
So the subjective point of view is really not an argument to promote uniques. There is the objective point of view though, when you see the whole map early and can guess the behavior of whatever civilization by just looking at its color. But as i said, it's only an occasion to tchat on forums, like making jokes on Gandhi bias towards nuclear weapons.
Giant Death Robots proves also that developers love forums. Because their name, and even design, gameplay power, come from a joke on those very forums. It was fun, don't get me wrong, but I think that developers should concentrate on improving the core game instead of paying attention to such futilities.
Futilities like uniques. They lure a lot of players. They think there will be differences, but ingame the games unfold majorly due to the map configuration, just as always. They are so lured by them that when someone (me
) proposes to remove them, they are becoming aggressive. Developers should definitely not caution such aggressive behavior.What's important here have been said here I believe.
epicivfreak
Prince
Or just do away with all the overly specific unit names, so there are no more Legions, Hussars, Archers, Knights, etc., but instead we focus on the role of the unit - Civ is a strategic game after all, not a tactical game. So you'd have:
Heavy Infantry, Medium Infantry, Light Infantry
Heavy Cavalry, Medium Cavalry, Light Cavalry
Heavy Artillery, Medium Artillery, Light Artillery
...and so on... Of course, then the post following this one is going to say, "oh, but that lacks flavor."
If we went totally generic with the names like that, then a civ could still have bonuses to something, for example:
Rome - Heavy Infantry can construct forts & have +2 Strength
Mongolia - Horse Archers have +1 Visibility & +1 Move
And on the graphics side, you could go so far as to provide a unique graphic for each cultural group in Civ 6, or even as far as a unique graphic for each Civ in the game.
Well, it would lack favor 
Not to go all slippery slope here, but what is next? Eiffel Tower is just "Tall Tower", Stonehenge is "Circle of Rocks", and Neuschwanstein is "Palace on a Hill"?
But yes, I do agree with your overall point that there are other options to go about adding flavor than needing to specifically add a "Roman Legion" unit, etc.
Not to go all slippery slope here, but what is next? Eiffel Tower is just "Tall Tower", Stonehenge is "Circle of Rocks", and Neuschwanstein is "Palace on a Hill"?
But yes, I do agree with your overall point that there are other options to go about adding flavor than needing to specifically add a "Roman Legion" unit, etc.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Or just do away with all the overly specific unit names, so there are no more Legions, Hussars, Archers, Knights, etc., but instead we focus on the role of the unit - Civ is a strategic game after all, not a tactical game. So you'd have:
Heavy Infantry, Medium Infantry, Light Infantry
Heavy Cavalry, Medium Cavalry, Light Cavalry
Heavy Artillery, Medium Artillery, Light Artillery
...and so on... Of course, then the post following this one is going to say, "oh, but that lacks flavor."
If we went totally generic with the names like that, then a civ could still have bonuses to something, for example:
Rome - Heavy Infantry can construct forts & have +2 Strength
Mongolia - Horse Archers have +1 Visibility & +1 Move
And on the graphics side, you could go so far as to provide a unique graphic for each cultural group in Civ 6, or even as far as a unique graphic for each Civ in the game.
The problem with this suggestion is two-fold.
First, the specific names/titles for the unit types are Descriptive, if you know any military history at all.
So, I know that a Winged Hussar is a Polish Heavy Cavalryman armed with lance, mace, sword, armored and wearing wooden 'wings' that make a hellish racket as he charges to put the Fear of God into the enemy.
I know immediately what the game design (should) mean when they label something Legion, or Panzer, or Minuteman.
Generic Unit Names give me none of that information: no visual imagery at all: Heavy Infantry, historically, might or might not wear body armor, might be armed with anything from Obsidian-bladed clubs (Jaquar or Eagle Knights) to Pikes (Swiss, Macedonian or Renaissance troops - each of which had different 'special characteristics' and movement rates!)
Second, specific titles are Evocative. Even the novice history reader has a mental picture of a Legion (even if only from watching 'Gladiator' on late-night TV!), or a Hoplite or a Trireme (to name probably three of the best-known historical military images). Assuming (a big, big assumption) that the game design gets it right, that Evocative Title will go a long way to make the mess of pixels into something 'real' to the gamer.
It would be a major mistake to give that up.
So, yes, the suggestion 'lacks flavor', but Flavor is a big part of any computer game: give up all the visual and other flavor that the computer allows you to include, and why bother putting the game on a computer at all?
dunkleosteus
Roman Pleb
I think the UUs, UBs and UAs were a great addition to the game. As many have mentioned, civilizations often cover broad time spans and attempting to summarize it can sometimes be an over simplification. I would like to see multiple leaders for civs to represent different play styles. Civ V has Napolean for France, a very millitaristic leader but I would equally like to see another leader geared towards culture. Even though two leaders for a civ might not share any attributes in common, they would still represent historical periods of the real-world civ's past. As far as further customization of the game experience, I made a long post detailing an expanded pantheon system designed to more fully flesh out the beliefs and traditions of a people in a way that I think feels natural and useful.
dunkleosteus
Roman Pleb
I think Civ's core game concept was to pick different civilizations from history and plop them down in 4000 BC (or whenever you start) to battle it out. The generic units in civ V are vague enough to be roughly approximal for each civ, and the uniques are I think one of the core features of the game. If we remove them, we might as well start everyone as some vaguely sumerian culture and get rid of civs and leaders entirely. I don't see a point in playing a game as France if there is nothing remotely French about my capabilities or options.
epicivfreak
Prince
They weren't in 1 or 2, I'll grant you, but they've been in ever iteration of the series since 3, so yes, they have become a core feature. Just like Culture wasn't introduced until 3, and Religion wasn't introduced until 4, but they've existed since. Like it or not, Uniques and Culture are now "Core" features of the series, they've been in more editions than they haven't been in (and Religion will be there shortly). So, while they may change a bit from iteration to iteration, they're not ever going to go away.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,953
They are not core feature in the sense that they are not to be have to enjoy the game. If you think the contrary, then you are dellusioned.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Unfortunately for that argument,'Uniques' are enjoyed by a lot of gamers, so in a sense they are part of their 'enjoyment' of the game.
As for 'dellusioned', or delusional, games are Illusions and products of imagination. If they were the same as reality, no game covering 6000+ years of history would be playable, both because of its length and because of its complexity.
The real question is which elements of illusion in the game are acceptable to the greatest number of (potential) players. So far, having a single ruler for 6000 years, having the same linear history of a civilization for 6000 years, having all civilizations start building cities at precisely the same moment, having all resources appear magically all over the map with the discovery of a single technology - all these seem to be acceptable, and are, frankly, at least as 'delusional' as having a single set of Unique Attributes apply to a civilization for 6000 years regardless of changes in the civilization and its situation.
Uniques are illusions. Every time you start a new game, you feel like you will choose a different civilization and everything will be particular, with no link with what you've played before. While it's pretty close of reality with unique civilizations like Venice (concept that should be digged to the point to propose to play "City-States" by major AIs and players), it's far to be true with 99% of the civilizations you can choose from.
When the game starts, very few elements, if not absolutely none, could indeed confirming that you are playing that particular civilization, to the point you should be able to see again your abilities ingame in order to not forget them.
All in all, unique abilities are here for flavor : it's nice to see chateaux when conquering France, or terraces when conquering Inca (?), but it would be nicer if this kind of flavor would be more present.
We need graphical representation in order to really feel the different abilities. And it's most of the time not the case. When it's the case, with unique units (and their affiliated icons), it's just during a particular laps of time, and then it vanishes.
So the subjective point of view is really not an argument to promote uniques. There is the objective point of view though, when you see the whole map early and can guess the behavior of whatever civilization by just looking at its color. But as i said, it's only an occasion to tchat on forums, like making jokes on Gandhi bias towards nuclear weapons.
Giant Death Robots proves also that developers love forums. Because their name, and even design, gameplay power, come from a joke on those very forums. It was fun, don't get me wrong, but I think that developers should concentrate on improving the core game instead of paying attention to such futilities.
Futilities like uniques. They lure a lot of players. They think there will be differences, but ingame the games unfold majorly due to the map configuration, just as always. They are so lured by them that when someone (me
What's important here have been said here I believe.
No, no, no. You got it all wrong mate. Do you really want a bland game?, one where all civilizations can only build the same buildings, wonders, units?
You'd be taking all the flavour out of the game!
Do not be ridiculous, the point is to go more unique in Civ6, and even more so in Civ7, and so on!
Doing so would ensure that every time you start a game as a different tribe (from your previous game) you'd get that wow! feeling again.
What do I mean by that wow! feeling?
Simple, lets use an example...
Let's say you in your previous game you were playing as France and thus were able to found/build/use unique to France: Paris (built/developed in western European style architecture), Musketeers, Foreign Legion, Cuirassiers, Trebuchets, Eiffel tower, chateau's, Marie Curie, Danton, Jean d'Arc, Versailles, Notre Dame, Mont St. Michel, cathedrals and basilicas, get to use a couple of unique to France U.A.'s (commercial/religious), ...etc.
Then you start a new game as Japan, get to found/build/use Kyoto ( in Far-East architectural building style ), you could the Samurai, Zero, Ninja, Ronin, Pagoda's, militaristic and seafaring Japanese UA's...
Don't you see?
The way to go is for the game to become more unique, not less.
What I would change besides adding far more of UU, UB, and UA's into the game, I'd also ensure each nation could also be able to build/develop Unique Wonders, Unique Technologies, Unique Great People...
I'd also make sure each cultural group builds their buildings in the architectural style corresponding to their real (geographical/historic) ones. So for example: French (generic) buildings look like the ones in English towns but is much different then the ones in Arabia, Azteca or Indonesia.
Also, the developers should really ensure to finally introduce changes to how all (HUMAN) Generic units look in the game. For example: Mayan or Zulu warriors should not share the same facial features as the warriors from Germany or Russia.
More, not less uniqueness is also needed when it comes to Great Leaders. Every Leader's (historical) characteristics should mirror the ones in the game, ensuring that not only each tribe having several Leaders to choose from, but also ensuring that none of them act/talk exactly the same.
Also, wouldn't it be cool if some of the Barbarian Tribes you encounter in the game were capable of (slow) tech advancement?, had their own unique Leader and were able to produce their own Unique Unit and perhaps a building as well?
Trust me, this is the way to go, this way each game you play will look and feel different!
I vote for:
1 more Unique Units
2 more Unique Buildings
3 more Unique Abilities
4 Unique Wonders
5 Unique Technologies
6 Unique Great People
7 Unique Architectural Styles (according to cultural heritage)
8 more Great Leaders
9 unique Barbarian Tribes (each with unique techs, units and abilities)
10 uniquely different (in personality) available Great Leaders (for each tribe)
11 Nation/Tribe Customization Option
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,953
I was not talking about illusions in the same layer of implication. Pretty much, my regard was independent of pretty much everything and is a 'thought' by itself, isolated except from the game.
What I call an illusion here is the fact that one can believe it will change things ingame, whereas in the end, it changes nothing. Well, it's at least the feeling I have from Civ5.
Now, as Daft may implicate it, maybe players are just dreaming. Daft dreams of a game with more uniques, but it would pretty much equals to make a new game for each civilization, which is not realistic.
You will never have more uniques, except if you reduce drastically the number of civilizations (like 3 like in Starcraft), which I believe would be hardly acceptable by most of those players, when they ask always for more.
Role Playing however is what could justify more uniques, but not necessarily : the most important part for having a feeling of recreating History, from my own experience of Civ2, is having Culturally Linked Starting Locations, like France beginning near Germany and England.
In this way, you could rememorate your History lessons by just playing, and recreate the historic rivalities, recreated, it is to say with different geography and events (of course) which would give you an overall and very enjoyable feeling. (nationalism just like football supporters)
Uniques for uniques, can't guarantee to have good mechanics, and not even role playing just like in Civ5 where Aztecs can begin near France, which implicates a nonsense, or at least, go away from History too much. (limits)
What's also important is mechanics, it's the way you play the game, not the color of your civilization. While flavor is important for feelings, it has to be permanent or the game will not be varied enough.
That's why I say that uniques in Civ5 are illusions, they are not numerous enough. As Daft says, they could become major, permanent and act better on the feelings, but it's not realistic IMO.
I understand you well but I don't think it's realistic, otherwise the developers would have done it for Civ5, Civ4 or Civ3. It's now 3 iterations, and uniques show themselves futile at best. It's not a question of computer power, it's a question of development work. If you want more uniques, then you will have to accept to have far less civilizations. If you have less civilizations, you will be less likely to roleplay your own for your own rave. So it's a matter of what you prefer : do you want to be able to roleplay your country, or do you put flavor, no matter which country, above of all ? So you can add more uniques (but reduce the number of playable civs), or having all civilizations with only significant uniques (city names, Culturally Linked Starting Locations)
Now I may be wrong, and maybe it's possible. (eventhough improbable) The only thing I would beg developers in this case, is adding a Culturally Linked Starting Location option.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
I also love uniques and I believe that there should be more differenciation among civilizations, not less. They add flavour and tons of replayability to the game, me thinks, but I do understand that it would be nice to offer a little bit more flexibility / customization when picking your civilization rather than being pidgeonholed into a single strategy.
Hence why I would support the approach of Boris Gudenuf when it comes to Civs, something along these lines:
Pick a civ that fancies your gameplay style / tastes (comes with unique ability, unique units, buildings, improvements, graphics, etc, in short, the whole Civ 5 package).
Pick a small starting bonus for your first city / first turns a la Civ BE (starting building, extra popullation, +1 food in every city, etc) according to whichever strategy you have in mind
Start the game and analyze your surroundings
Pick a couple "traits" in order to further customize your civ in relation to said surroundings (ej: "+1 movement to naval units", "+1 production in desert tiles", whatever).
Pick 2 starting techs / social policies of your choosing
There you go! You would have a civilization's flavour with none of that pesky "stuck in the middle of a continent with Polynesia" type of situations.
Hence why I would support the approach of Boris Gudenuf when it comes to Civs, something along these lines:
Pick a civ that fancies your gameplay style / tastes (comes with unique ability, unique units, buildings, improvements, graphics, etc, in short, the whole Civ 5 package).
Pick a small starting bonus for your first city / first turns a la Civ BE (starting building, extra popullation, +1 food in every city, etc) according to whichever strategy you have in mind
Start the game and analyze your surroundings
Pick a couple "traits" in order to further customize your civ in relation to said surroundings (ej: "+1 movement to naval units", "+1 production in desert tiles", whatever).
Pick 2 starting techs / social policies of your choosing
There you go! You would have a civilization's flavour with none of that pesky "stuck in the middle of a continent with Polynesia" type of situations.
epicivfreak
Prince
Yeah, I prefer my civs starts Culturally Linked too - it just feels wrong to have the Aztecs next to France, somehow. Civ 5 has a mod for that, oddly enough, called Culturally Linked Starting Locations.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,953
Yeah, I prefer my civs starts Culturally Linked too - it just feels wrong to have the Aztecs next to France, somehow. Civ 5 has a mod for that, oddly enough, called Culturally Linked Starting Locations.
Why the sarcasm ? Don't answer too fast.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,953
Yeah yeah, you love them because they are illusions that shine. But ingame, they are nothing.
That could be a possibility why you love them so much : they make you dream for more. But in the state, they objectively and absolutely are not convincing.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
This is simply and completely not true. What is true, is that a great many of the 'Uniques' in Civ V have either a temporary effect (Unique Units that become obsolete with 400 turns left in the game) or an effect so situational as to be meaningless in the majority of games. That's not an argument against Uniques, it's an argument for Uniques that that are situational and selectable so that a given civilization has Uniques that apply in the specific game you are playing.
For a current Unique that is Game Changing, try playing Songhai. They get 3 x the normal Gold from destroying a Barbarian Camp. Since Barbarians spawn throughout the game, that means they Always Have Gold. Unlike other Civs whose Gold-producing Uniques are situational, requiring trading partners or tradable luxuries, this civ gets Gold from a constant, renewable source. I have stopped playing Songhai because it is, for me, completely OP Because of that Unique. The last game I did play as that civ, I never built a Settler - I bought my first four settlers with gold from 'mining' Barbarians, and slaughtered my nearest neighbors with units I bought or were gifted from militant City States I bribed into Allies.
Which is another argument for better Development - Uniques that are not OP, but not ineffectual, either. This is not easy, and requires some serious effort put into Beta testing, but it is not impossible. Don't let the overall Civ V experience fool you.
Well, I live in 'the state' of Washington, where we just legalized Marujuana, so there's a lot of dreaming going on here ...
Objectively the entire game is a dream and an illusion, that's why it's called a game and not Reality.
Absolutely I'm not sure what you need to be convinced of. They do differentiate between the various Civilizations in the game - not enough, according to many of the posters here, and far too situational, in my opinion, and not at all according to you, which is demonstrably (see above) neither absolute nor objective.
Doing away with them completely without replacing them by some mechanism that at least equally differentiates among the civilizations would, in my opinion, destroy the game. You would be left with civilizations that might as well be nameless: if there is no difference whatsoever in the game between Germany and Siam, might was well label them A, B, and Z. Also, reducing the Replay Value of differentiation to Zero will reduce the longevity of the game by years for most players, and to zero for some. It is a bad move both in game design and economic terms for the developing company. I can make a solid prediction: any suggestion that they do any such thing will be roundly ignored.
So, if our posts are to have any point at all, suggest ways to make Uniques more useful in the game, more usable by the player in every game he/she plays, and more specific to a given Civilization so that each and every civilization requires a different set of decisions for the player, and produces a unique experience for the player in each and every game.
That's a tall order, but the fact that we are still talking about Civilization games a generation after the first iteration appeared means that to an extent, it has been done (not enough, of course - that's one of the points of all of this chatter!)
