How unique should we make civs?

[ShahJahanII]

Anyone who has played both Civ4:Bts and Civ V knows that civilizations have been made more unique in Civ V. I am quite comfortable with this level of uniqueness, but how far should we go with this? Should we make civs less unique, to better balance gameplay? Or should we make them more unique, to better add to the variety?

EDIT:Map types don't have anything to do with the topic. Let's assume we are playing on continents.

EDIT2:Take into consideration balancing AI personalities. For example, we all know Montezuma is the game's most violent leader. To balance him out we need peaceful civilizations like India. Pachacuti doesn't like to expand a lot, so we need really expansive leaders like Cathy do balance him out.

 

[starrywisdom]

Creating mirrors does not create balance, it creates stale gameplay.

 

[mitsho]

The problem with Unique Powers is that every civ gets specialized to a big extent which is probably also why they have only one leader per civ. If you only chang the personality, people call lame, if you give new units, balancing gets very different and it might be difficult to find a UU, UB or UI for a certain leader, if you give them a new power, you run out of ideas even more quickly.

So I guess I like the uniqueness that exists now in civ5 and which results in a big variety of gamestyles and unique civs (Polynesia, Inuit? - who would have thought of including inuit in civ4, but there's quite a large discussion going on), but it makes the game also feeling very "gamey" (also other aspects of civ5 do that), where as civ4 was more tilted in the direction of "simulation". I guess, the next civ game can go back again, but it is good that they test out both extremes! (Shaping your civ due to the game's context vs. Playing "the XY").

 

[Rinnero]

I believe this is relevant to some extent:

http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?106312-What-do-you-think-about-civs-perks-and-unique-units

That was my first post at this forum so... what I refer to "perk" is actually called "UA" in CivV. That will make things more clear. Obviously first post is stupid, so read second and third: thats what I think about how "unique" should civs be.

Briefly: only 5% of your gaming experience changes when you choose other civ. That is very little. Arguments are in link if you are interested.

 

[Truthy]

They should be somewhat unique but not much more than they already are. Otherwise some civs would have too great of advantages in certain fields. Sometimes they would be awesome and sometimes they would suck. The unique powers are probably enough (maybe even too much). The major form of uniqueness I would like to see for different civs would mostly be unique building styles and and unit appearances (so Chinese cities won't look exactly like Indian cities, etc). Gameplay wise, I would want them to be largely similar to one another.

 

[starrywisdom]

They should be somewhat unique but not much more than they already are. Otherwise some civs would have too great of advantages in certain fields. Sometimes they would be awesome and sometimes they would suck. .

Having civs vary in 'awesomeness' when using random map settings increases re playability IMHO(but it needs to make sense). UA's should be designed with 'random' in mind. UA's such as Englands when you come random with no water(or very little, or are landlocked, etc) is excruciatingly painful and a 'waste' - which is why the ability needs to be restructured. Ux's need to be 'balanced' to where they are unique but not broken(whether it's 'over powered' or 'under powered'). Generic uniqueness(sounds fairly ironic) is what Civ needs, as opposed to 'tunnel uniqueness'.

 

[Truthy]

Yes. There might be no point to playing as England or Polynesia because their UAs and UUs are centered upon water. Therefore, you can only play as them on certain map types. I don't know that in any scenario you could have civs as unique as possible without them suffering in circumstances that are not entirely favorable (for example: England on Pangaea). Even if you are playing as a civ that doesn't necessarily suffer in the environment or circumstances you are currently playing in, there will be a high probability that you will be screwed over by the civs that thrive.

I don't believe that survival of the fittest is a good way to balance gameplay. If you play with random civs and a random map, it is probable that one particular civ with the best suited UA will be the determined winner from turn 1.

 

[MARDUK80]

Cool topic

Voted for Each civilization should be as unique as possible.

In my opinion they should make each Civilization even more unique than at the present. Some might get a bit overpowered in certain era (depends on unique components), but that would make the game just more fun, ie. "I must wipe out this and that Civ before they reach their "Golden Era" (unique units etc.)"

Creating mirrors does not create balance, it creates stale gameplay.

UA's such as Englands when you come random with no water(or very little, or are landlocked, etc) is excruciatingly painful and a 'waste' - which is why the ability needs to be restructured. Ux's need to be 'balanced' to where they are unique but not broken(whether it's 'over powered' or 'under powered').

form of uniqueness I would like to see for different civs would mostly be unique building styles and and unit appearances (so Chinese cities won't look exactly like Indian cities, etc).

Agreed on these points.

 

[starrywisdom]

I don't believe that survival of the fittest is a good way to balance gameplay. If you play with random civs and a random map, it is probable that one particular civ with the best suited UA will be the determined winner from turn 1.

No, just absolutely no. I play random everything(map, leader, resource type, etc etc) and I win pretty consistently without 're-rolls', even when I get stuck with a less then optimal situation. It's worth noting that I tend to play around huge with varying CS populations and it's always on deity. I've been pitted against 'unwinnable situations' that you describe(IE: the AI[or multiple AI's] have the start that greatly benefits them) and I can still come out on top.

England may lose their major UA, but no UA in the game is a game-deciding advantage that there is such a large gap that you can't overcome. Sure Egypt with marble going for wonders will give you quite a bit of an advantage(or disadvantage if your against it) but there is other ways to overcome that advantage.

There are too many variables in the game to call a winner before turn 100 IMHO. In fact, I would say that there's a 0% chance to reliably state a winner at turn 1 base soley on starting position and UA.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

The problem with making traits so generic that they work regardless of map type is that you lose a lot of flavour. What type shall be chosen then? Pangaea? There goes all the water bonuses. Don't like deserts? Better get rid of those oasis bonuses. Don't like mass forests or jungles? There goes Hiawatha and Montezuma. Don't like mountain ranges? Good bye Inca.

Some civs play in a unique way. There's something cool to do at a particular time or during a particular era. Others are just blah and it doesn't really matter much at all that they have anything unique. It doesn't unlock any new strategy or playstyle. So I say try to tailor uniqueness so that each civ has some somewhat unique strategy they can try. That gives you great replayability.

While I agree that beating the AIs on random settings even @ deity is an interesting point, I'm not sure it's actually relevant to the uniqueness factor. It's not overcoming the unique bonuses. It's about abusing the weak AI and broken concepts in the game. The AI is not taking proper advantage of it's normal abilities, let alone its unique ones.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Map types don't have anything to do with the topic. Let's assume we are playing on continents.

 

[starrywisdom]

Map types don't have anything to do with the topic. Let's assume we are playing on continents.

Actually it has a DIRECT correlation with the topic at hand...could you explain why it doesn't?

 

[ShahJahanII]

Take into consideration balancing AI personalities. For example, we all know Montezuma is the game's most violent leader. To balance him out we need peaceful civilizations like India. Pachacuti doesn't like to expand a lot, so we need really expansive leaders like Cathy do balance him out.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Actually it has a DIRECT correlation with the topic at hand...could you explain why it doesn't?

I play with continents or terra always to keep things balanced. If I ever do decide to play with a clearly biased map, like archipelago, I try to many adjust things, for example, in arcipelago's case, not let Polynesia in since they have a huge advantage.

In all future posts in this thread, please assume we are playing on continents.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Cool topic

Thank you.

 

[Human Crouton]

I want each civilization to be as unique as possible while still maintaining some amount of regularity between them. The game should feel familiar, but almost like a new game depending on each civilization you choose.

That's why I loved Master Of Orion 2 so much. The rules were always the same, but each race felt like I was playing a different game.

 

[Sonereal]

Each Civilization should have at least different unit art. Unique units should be when the unit is actually...unique. But not a unique unit for every line of unit.

 

[fmlizard2]

I'm in the group wanting more diversity between Civs. I find them to be a little too similar. I understand that it makes developing and balancing the game harder the more diversity there is, but in a perfect world civs would be even more specialized.

I've often thought that civs should get a bonus when building a wonder that in real life is possessed by them, such as the Americans with Statue of Liberty or Egypt and the Pyramids. As it happens a couple of the worst civs have some awesome wonders that would be helped by that (Ottomans - Hagia Sophia, Americans - SoL, Pentagon)

I'm also a believer in each civ having their own special national wonder, a "UW" if you will.

I also wouldn't mind seeing each civ get another UU or UB, such that each civ has at least one UB. The UB might support the military of someone like the Mongols, but it provides more depth and variety.

 

[Shadow717]

I voted for just a little more, and for me that extra step would be do divide unit designs into the same catagories as city graphics. So for example and German and English unit of spearmen would look the same, but a japanese spearmen unit would look different. it may be a little hard to come up with graphics for things like Native American tanks and jets, but I think it could be done and would be worth it.

edit: Did CivRev do this? I feel like it might have, but can't remember for sure.

 

[Deggial]

Hard to tell...

I voted "as unique as possible" with possible meaning not over the top. So maybe the second option should have been my choice.

Nevertheless I did choose the first option, as I think variety makes different civs interresting to play. Why should there be a choice, if all Civs you can choose feel equal?

--

Excursion:

The "balance argument" is a red flag for me, by the way. Yes: units have to be balanced against each other to be meaningfull. It is bad game design, if you don't need an unit because it is useless.
But all this balance between different Civs is overrated IMHO. (I dont't say, that it is absolutely unimportant. I just think, that it is less important than sometimes propagated.)

In SP, its absolutely OK to encounter different hard opponents.
Meet Ghandi and know: "Easy prey!" ? Why not?
Meet Montezuma and tremble in fear? Great!
And if you choose a Civ to play with yourself, you are welcome to vary your own "difficulty level" by choosing a harder to play civ or an easy one.

All these balance issues are due to MP. I understand, that people like MP. You are welcome to have fun with it! But for me, Civ was and is mainly for SP - and the attempt to make it "fair" is the reason for so many downfalls, forum-members claimed to be due to 1UPT (at least, when CiV just was published).
- Wonders to lame? Well, in SP it doesn't matter if there are powerfull wonders. In MP, there will be whining for not getting a specific wonder will lose the game.
- City placement doesn't matter due to all the same tile values? Well, in SP it is nice to find great places for your cities. In MP, there will be great lament about this "unfairness".
- And then, *back to topic*: In SP, highly unique Civs are fine. In MP, they will feel unfair and therefore be a reason for complaint.