How unique should we make civs?

[ShahJahanII]

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 my, 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.

What I meant to say was balance AIs out so that they are all different. You imply that certain civs such as the Aztec are more dangerous than civs such as India. But this isn't always true. Ive seen scenarios where peaceful civs like India, Egypt, and so on often win a cultural victory being on the same continent as violent civs like the Aztec and Japan. To balance things out for example, we could add more science civs like Babylon and China. Maybe a Korea civ that is very science based, but also good with military, and maybe not so good with culture and gold. This contradicts with the idea that making civs more unique would make the game less balanced. It shows that we can make the game more balanced, by making the civs more unique.

Sorry if that was confusing

 

[spider1]

I'm not sure how to vote in this poll because I don't think more uniqueness on the part of AI civs in SP games will help their play making ability. However I do think the AI civs should have more of a definate "flavor" or general direction to their game.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Adding a Maya or Korea science-based civ could help balance things out.

 

[ehecatzin]

If anything the game needs more uniqness to each civ, it creates more replay value.

From the graphical side, like creating unique unit graphics for each culture group, as mentioned before, Asian, American and European spearmen shouldnt look the same. Rise of nations did this and you would get incredible looking stuff like Aztec cavalry for example, and even armies made out of the same units would appear to have a very diferent flavor.

I would love to see something along the lines of special Social policy tree unique to each civ too.

 

[M_Sparkle]

Unique trees would be brill, gal civ 2 has unique tech trees as well as UAs and UBs but is beautifully balanced.
For ciV I think a unique social policy trees is the way to go.
The more diverse the better.
Also even changing the names of non special buildings eg national treasure called bank of England for the English, federal reserve for Americans would make each civ a lot more unique and have no balance impact.

 

[logintime]

It isn't an issue of how unique something is, it is an issue of how balanced you make it.

The prime example is Starcraft. The three races in the game are nothing alike and have little overlap in units (Warcraft III would later take the same approach). They were basically as unique as you could get, but the game was so well fine-tuned and elaborately balanced as to make no one race better than the other.

Civ5 has the problem where the UAs and UUs have almost no thought about balance put into them. It's hard not to argue that Greece and Siam's abilities are not massively overpowered, or that the US's is surprisingly weak. The UUs and UBs have not been well-tested for balance either, which is why the Mongol's UU was so overpowered for gameplay when it first came out. (They ended up nerfing all horses to remove that particular exploit.)

Civ4 had a system that wasn't perfect, but did add variability. Most civs had more than one leader, and you could choose to Random Leaders set if you wanted. The UUs were mostly not overpowered (*cough*Praetorians*cough*), and the leader personalities added some character that Civ5 is missing. Mind you, the personalities were also disbalancing. For example, you could always count on Japan to be a weak civ in the game because Tokogawa's extreme isolationist bent and lack of expansionism meant he was forever behind. And Shaka, with his aggressiveness and land-grabbing tendencies, had to be stopped early or he'd potentially steamroll everyone. I still think Civ4 had a better system, but it could have been improved, ala the Starcraft model.

In short, uniqueness is not the issue. Strong gameplay design, sharp balancing, and tons of testing are.

 

[Ecivlover]

I think that civs should have variety like in gal civ 2 were each civ had a different play style so no civ is so powerful but each is unique in strategy. For instance mongols will have mostly horse armies however etc. Also I want to approach every civ with a different strategy and different ideas and special strategies. I think balance is important but if everything is the same there is really no point in having different civs. Like in real life during the second wars the Carthaginians put an emphasis on cavalry and the Romans used soldiers but in the end it would still come down to skill but you would have different strategies.

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

It isn't an issue of how unique something is, it is an issue of how balanced you make it.

The prime example is Starcraft. The three races in the game are nothing alike and have little overlap in units (Warcraft III would later take the same approach). They were basically as unique as you could get, but the game was so well fine-tuned and elaborately balanced as to make no one race better than the other.

I agree those were definitely unique and balanced games. However to be fair it did take Blizzard what... dozens of patches over multiple years to achieve this delicate balance? Out of the box brood war had medics that were almost unstoppable and I can't recall how many times war3 played with or added new armor types.

Although I do agree there are some situationally extremely strong civs, to be fair they have taken steps in each patch to bring them into line. Germany and the Ottomans were buffed and Babylon nerfed in the last patch, to name a few.

It's far easier to make a fun but unbalanced concept balanced than it is to make a bland, balanced concept fun.

 

[Truthy]

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.

Thank you for affirming my point. If you win frequently (even with unfavorable starting positions) then clearly you are winning because of superior strategy in the game. The OP is asking whether or not civs should be more unique/diverse. With such a process of diversification all of the civilizations would have to have very particular abilities; thus they would be highly specialized in certain starting positions and other times screwed from the get go. This is quite explanatory, but if someone is highly specialized in the field of economics then they won't survive when playing football. Evidently enough, civs should be able to have an equal playing field no matter what the field is.

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.

And I would like to keep it this, hence my position in this argument. What is your position?

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.

Thank you. Advocating for a greater range of uniqueness would call for more in depth specialization of civs (how "unique" strategy-wise can you get?). The diversification I would like to see placed in effect would be strictly aesthetic.

 

[Truthy]

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

I'm not accepting this. The subject of unique civilizations applies to the game in every map type.

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'.

If your core value here is "re playability" then it is far more re playable if you have a fair chance at achieving victory on any random map. Lizzy is at a slight disadvantage when playing on non water maps. Slight disadvantage, not a major one. If they increase strategical uniqueness, then this slight disadvantage may turn into a major one. If a civ that receives an advantage on land meets up with Lizzy, then it will be a mess for her. Therefore, from a strategical aspect, they should not make civs more unique. It would only make it unfair for civs with the disadvantage, thoroughly decreasing re playability.

The only disadvantage that should inhibit a civilization should be the superior skill of their opponents. Not the God given, unchangeable UA that they receive prior to the start. Mind you, that UAs were designed to suit a variety of player styles not a variety of map types.

If anything the game needs more uniqness to each civ, it creates more replay value.

Is the uniqueness you are referring to here strictly aesthetic, or strategic?

From the graphical side, like creating unique unit graphics for each culture group, as mentioned before, Asian, American and European spearmen shouldnt look the same. Rise of nations did this and you would get incredible looking stuff like Aztec cavalry for example, and even armies made out of the same units would appear to have a very diferent flavor.

I agree.

I would love to see something along the lines of special Social policy tree unique to each civ too.

What do you mean? Would each civ have an entirely different tree or would it be limited to names and small items?

 

[danieladler]

It seems all the AI civs work as an entity anyway (everyone against you), and that some civs nature should be more friendly hasnt shown in any of my games, but it would at least be nicer for your own choice of civ to have more unique civs.

 

[Truthy]

I don't think that the system of UAs is that bad. I think cIV's traits were better though.

 

[ShahJahanII]

I don't think that the system of UAs is that bad. I think cIV's traits were better though.

I couldn't disagree more, those traits were redundant and boring.

 

[Truthy]

Pleasantly, they weren't game changing and were suited to player styles rather than map types.

 

[Pouakai]

I hated the traits in cIV, V's ones are much better. I understand the argument that the level of uniqueness can be bad for a civ on the wrong map type, but to be honest, that's the best part. I would throw my game out the window if Polynesia was leading the world on a highlands map as a world power. It's not right. Having them unique like this is the best. I also love the unique playstyles. I was planning a cultural game, but then on random civ I got Denmark. I decided domination, and using the unique ability to my advantage, I could Declare War, amphibiously assault a city and capture their capital in 2 turns, with only three Beserkers

 

[Rinnero]

The results of poll are quite strange. It is opposite to what people said half a year ago. (they were mostly ok with as it is, and considered there is a lot of different playstyles)

I'm a bit not sure what uniqueness do we discuss: leader personalities? UAs? Art?

Anyway, I dont care about personalities or art at all. The only important thing is gameplay. For those who think that the only "fair" play is when all civs are the same, in many games there is often an option to disable uniqueness of civs. Others want interesting and different game experience.

In CivV UAs are so minor that you may ignore them and play as you wish with almost no harm for you. For example Arabs - their perk motivates you to build more cities but the bonus is so minor (+1 gold per trade route) that you can easily forget about it. Or americans, +1 sight line is quite nice but you wont play differently because of this.

Changing your usual strategy, so that you could benefit from your UA as much as you can, actually harms you more in some cases. For example, you play aztecs and do your best to get most of their 'culture for kill' bonus. Even in that case you wont be able to be ahead of others more than by one social policy. So why bother to place troops near each barbs camp to kill them when they spawn, or attacking CS just to kill all their units and wait for it to build some more? In that case you probably lose more than you gain - you lose gold every turn for each unit that is waiting near barbs' camp and you lose firepower that could be used more efficiently (for example conquering or weakening nearby civilization). In SP you can pretend that "this ability is so great" and "I play not as usually and still do good", but things become obvious in MP, where you'll fall behind in that case, compared with the player that uses "the usual best" strategy. And that is why everyone just play as they usually do and think of culture bonus as occasional that increases a bit their culture (by 5% or maybe less)(aztecs with raging barbs and honour opener may result in 12-20 cpt for each encampment, raging barbs is setup, but in that case aztec's UA is pretty close to game-changing, when it is really better to do things not as you usually do)


What are the requirements for interesting and different civs' UAs?

- several per each civ, so that playing strategy wouldnt be too straightforward.
1-2 major UAs and several minor. Major will decide your grand strategy, minor will be occasional, but may come in handy. (england's +2sea movement is actually minor UA, because its not game changing)

- UAs benefit you significantly if you play differently (not as usual)

- UAs have at least some use even if you dont tailor your game-style to them

- balanced of course. That will be MUCH harder to balance really different civs, but that is possible. BTW, balance is when all civs have equal chances for victory if they use their UAs.


Agree?


Here are some examples of differently played civs:


England: - Power of Empire. Economically oriented nation.

Major traits
- +20% gold from trade routes
- +0.25 gold from population
Minor traits
- +1 ship movement
- +50% production speed of archer-type units if you dont have any
- +50% production speed of fishing boat
- +2 interception range of AA gun-type unit

This England will benefit a lot from building an Empire with lot of cities with large population, but still get some bonuses even in OCC.
Minor bonuses refer to sea impire and WW2 and are occasional but could be useful. England is pretty standart expansion-styled nation.


Korea: - Power of Tradition. Culturally-defensive nation.

Major traits
- +15% culture in all cities (added after all modifiers are applied)
- +50% production speed of cultural buildings
Minor traits
- tile repair is twice faster
- cities repair +50% health per turn
- defensive buildings give +25% defence

Korea is obviously suited for culture. Both one city culture play or a lot of cities with fast built cultural buildings suit well.
One of the defensive strategies is to allow enemy to damage your cities but than counterattack and kill weakened enemy forces.


Spain: - Power of Discovery.

Major traits
- +1% to culture and science per each 10% of explored tiles of world (added after all modifiers are applied)
- 2x gain from natural wonders
Minor traits
- at the beginning of game 5 tiles in each direction from settler are explored
- when you explore ruins you can choose one of two bonuses
- +50% production speed of heavy-ships-type units if you dont have any

Spain is kinda tricky. You get up to 10% bonus to both culture and science but only if you explored the whole world.
Other nations will probably wont let you go, and if there are raging barbs the worse, but still its a nice bonus.
Its preferred to build cities near natural wonders. And you wont get map of f%^#ing ocean in ruins that is great.


Germans: - Power of Industry. Production oriented.

Major traits
- +1 production per mine
- you can build buildings that require technology you are currently researching
Minor traits
- +1 production/gold per city
- +20% production speed of tanks, submarines and interceptors.

Best for hill-heavy lands, providing you have enough food to support it.
Second major trait allows you to start building nesessary buildings 5-10 turns earlier.
Good for expansion because of production bonus per city.
As for war, its better to wage it by the end of game by suppressing enemy air and navy and advancing by tanks.


Persia: - Power of Ritual. Culture or expansion.

Major traits
- second city is considered to be second capital and has palace as well
- -15% culture cost per institute
Minor traits
- settled cities have population 2
- +1 move all units during GA

Second city doesnt only get more production, but also is affected by all SPs that affect capital.
After settling second city you may go into culture or into expansion.
War is advisable during GA.


Rome: - Power of Caesar. Militaristic

Major traits
- GGs appear +50% more often
- unit with general on its tile gets +100% combat strength in defence
Minor traits
- forts are built twice faster
- fort defence +50%
- forts can be built on enemy territory
- +50% production speed of heavy-infantry type unit if you dont have any

Rome doesnt have any non military traits so its better to wage war.
Tactics is focused on making line of defence on the enemy territory by generals and forts and siege a city.
Pretty good in defence of your lands as well.


Russia: - Power of Motherland. Defensive expansion.

Major traits
- when attack units on friendly territory that are without support of general +30% combat strength
- when attack artillery or tile with general +30% combat strenght
Minor traits
- +50% production speed of settlers
- -25% requirements of culture for border expansion
- capturing russian city gives gold to russians instead of attackers

Defensive nation that also has nice possibilities in expansion.
Defensive strategy is also unusual. Russians aim for GG and vulnerable support units and than destroy remaining forces.


Feel how much will your usual actions change, if playing any of these civ?

These examples can be unbalanced to a certain degree but still they give you some idea of more different civs and game strategies.

 

[Truthy]

I hated the traits in cIV, V's ones are much better.

Could you please explain what was so wrong with traits?

I understand the argument that the level of uniqueness can be bad for a civ on the wrong map type, but to be honest, that's the best part. I would throw my game out the window if Polynesia was leading the world on a highlands map as a world power. It's not right. Having them unique like this is the best.

Why is it good that every AI except for Lizzy, Sully, and Kammy, are at a disadvantage on water maps? Why is it good that your map type determines victory? Why is it good that Polynesia can't win on certain map types?
Again, the outcome of the game should not be determined by map type; but by player skill. UAs are not ambiguous in any way. They allow certain civs to thrive in one type of map but be awful in another. This is a huge factor that diminishes re playability.

Even if Kammy was not land based, historically, I don't understand why that means he can't be during a video game.

What is the fundamental problem with allowing a civs to have a fleeting chance at achieving victory on all maps?

I also love the unique playstyles. I was planning a cultural game, but then on random civ I got Denmark. I decided domination, and using the unique ability to my advantage, I could Declare War, amphibiously assault a city and capture their capital in 2 turns, with only three Beserkers

I'm glad that you were able to use your unique ability to your advantage. Now tell me, if you were playing on a highlands map with Kammy, would he have posed a significant threat to you? Why or why not? If you rolled the dice for random map and civ and you landed on Kammy with highlands, to what extent would you be able to use your UA?

 

[Drawmeus]

I personally think there should be a 'base' map type where things are roughly balanced - continents, maybe (though I personally play PerfectWorld3 and it works out pretty well). I'm fine with archipelagos favoring some civs and pangaea's favoring others. I'm fine with map size being a factor in how good civs are. That kind of stuff is unavoidable if we're going to have civs that are interestingly different.

I think the DLC civs (excluding Babylon and Mongolia, really) have struck a great balance with being interesting and decently balanced overall. I'd say Polynesia is about the upper bound for how different I want civs to be from each other, and Spain is about the lower bound. Of the original civs, I think Washington and Napoleon are pretty bad (as far as 'interesting' goes), Montezuma and Bismarck are better.

 

[Thormodr]

The results of poll are quite strange. It is opposite to what people said half a year ago. (they were mostly ok with as it is, and considered there is a lot of different playstyles)

I'm a bit not sure what uniqueness do we discuss: leader personalities? UAs? Art?

Anyway, I dont care about personalities or art at all. The only important thing is gameplay. For those who think that the only "fair" play is when all civs are the same, in many games there is often an option to disable uniqueness of civs. Others want interesting and different game experience.

In CivV UAs are so minor that you may ignore them and play as you wish with almost no harm for you. For example Arabs - their perk motivates you to build more cities but the bonus is so minor (+1 gold per trade route) that you can easily forget about it. Or americans, +1 sight line is quite nice but you wont play differently because of this.

Changing your usual strategy, so that you could benefit from your UA as much as you can, actually harms you more in some cases. For example, you play aztecs and do your best to get most of their 'culture for kill' bonus. Even in that case you wont be able to be ahead of others more than by one social policy. So why bother to place troops near each barbs camp to kill them when they spawn, or attacking CS just to kill all their units and wait for it to build some more? In that case you probably lose more than you gain - you lose gold every turn for each unit that is waiting near barbs' camp and you lose firepower that could be used more efficiently (for example conquering or weakening nearby civilization). In SP you can pretend that "this ability is so great" and "I play not as usually and still do good", but things become obvious in MP, where you'll fall behind in that case, compared with the player that uses "the usual best" strategy. And that is why everyone just play as they usually do and think of culture bonus as occasional that increases a bit their culture (by 5% or maybe less)(aztecs with raging barbs and honour opener may result in 12-20 cpt for each encampment, raging barbs is setup, but in that case aztec's UA is pretty close to game-changing, when it is really better to do things not as you usually do)


What are the requirements for interesting and different civs' UAs?

- several per each civ, so that playing strategy wouldnt be too straightforward.
1-2 major UAs and several minor. Major will decide your grand strategy, minor will be occasional, but may come in handy. (england's +2sea movement is actually minor UA, because its not game changing)

- UAs benefit you significantly if you play differently (not as usual)

- UAs have at least some use even if you dont tailor your game-style to them

- balanced of course. That will be MUCH harder to balance really different civs, but that is possible. BTW, balance is when all civs have equal chances for victory if they use their UAs.


Agree?


Here are some examples of differently played civs:


England: - Power of Empire. Economically oriented nation.

Major traits
- +20% gold from trade routes
- +0.25 gold from population
Minor traits
- +1 ship movement
- +50% production speed of archer-type units if you dont have any
- +50% production speed of fishing boat
- +2 interception range of AA gun-type unit

This England will benefit a lot from building an Empire with lot of cities with large population, but still get some bonuses even in OCC.
Minor bonuses refer to sea impire and WW2 and are occasional but could be useful. England is pretty standart expansion-styled nation.


Korea: - Power of Tradition. Culturally-defensive nation.

Major traits
- +15% culture in all cities (added after all modifiers are applied)
- +50% production speed of cultural buildings
Minor traits
- tile repair is twice faster
- cities repair +50% health per turn
- defensive buildings give +25% defence

Korea is obviously suited for culture. Both one city culture play or a lot of cities with fast built cultural buildings suit well.
One of the defensive strategies is to allow enemy to damage your cities but than counterattack and kill weakened enemy forces.


Spain: - Power of Discovery.

Major traits
- +1% to culture and science per each 10% of explored tiles of world (added after all modifiers are applied)
- 2x gain from natural wonders
Minor traits
- at the beginning of game 5 tiles in each direction from settler are explored
- when you explore ruins you can choose one of two bonuses
- +50% production speed of heavy-ships-type units if you dont have any

Spain is kinda tricky. You get up to 10% bonus to both culture and science but only if you explored the whole world.
Other nations will probably wont let you go, and if there are raging barbs the worse, but still its a nice bonus.
Its preferred to build cities near natural wonders. And you wont get map of f%^#ing ocean in ruins that is great.


Germans: - Power of Industry. Production oriented.

Major traits
- +1 production per mine
- you can build buildings that require technology you are currently researching
Minor traits
- +1 production/gold per city
- +20% production speed of tanks, submarines and interceptors.

Best for hill-heavy lands, providing you have enough food to support it.
Second major trait allows you to start building nesessary buildings 5-10 turns earlier.
Good for expansion because of production bonus per city.
As for war, its better to wage it by the end of game by suppressing enemy air and navy and advancing by tanks.


Persia: - Power of Ritual. Culture or expansion.

Major traits
- second city is considered to be second capital and has palace as well
- -15% culture cost per institute
Minor traits
- settled cities have population 2
- +1 move all units during GA

Second city doesnt only get more production, but also is affected by all SPs that affect capital.
After settling second city you may go into culture or into expansion.
War is advisable during GA.


Rome: - Power of Caesar. Militaristic

Major traits
- GGs appear +50% more often
- unit with general on its tile gets +100% combat strength in defence
Minor traits
- forts are built twice faster
- fort defence +50%
- forts can be built on enemy territory
- +50% production speed of heavy-infantry type unit if you dont have any

Rome doesnt have any non military traits so its better to wage war.
Tactics is focused on making line of defence on the enemy territory by generals and forts and siege a city.
Pretty good in defence of your lands as well.


Russia: - Power of Motherland. Defensive expansion.

Major traits
- when attack units on friendly territory that are without support of general +30% combat strength
- when attack artillery or tile with general +30% combat strenght
Minor traits
- +50% production speed of settlers
- -25% requirements of culture for border expansion
- capturing russian city gives gold to russians instead of attackers

Defensive nation that also has nice possibilities in expansion.
Defensive strategy is also unusual. Russians aim for GG and vulnerable support units and than destroy remaining forces.


Feel how much will your usual actions change, if playing any of these civ?

These examples can be unbalanced to a certain degree but still they give you some idea of more different civs and game strategies.

Some pretty good ideas there.

Having a number of major and minor abilities would be a definite improvement and would definitely make the Civs feel more unique.

Hopefully when the source code comes out some modders can implement some of these ideas. Not that flavour is the biggest problem with the game or anything but this would be a very good start in making the game more fun.

 

[fat_tonle]

I want starcraft esque uniqueness the hell with it. The economic game, the military game, the science/culture game, all should be unique for each civ. I agree we need several unique abilities. Focus on AT LEAST two areas per civ... be it commerce, military, happiness, growth, whatever. One thing I hated about starcraft was that the economic game was basically the same thing for the races. In civ, everything should be unique.