Is it plausible for all civs to have 1 more UU/UB?

[MAHak2]

I would love civs to have more UU/UB, I know its a big thing to ask for with all the extra tweaking Firaxis would be doing to balance out the gameplay, if it was implemented.

If we keep to the established "formula" that no civ can have more then 1 UB, some civ would have to have a new UU.

If I think of the "modern/present" civs(France, Germany, England, USA... etc) I could easily come up with 5 new UU/UB for each.

Where I see a problem is with the more obscure or ancients civs such as Polynesia, Babylon, Iroquois, Inca... ect(not to mention some of the new "Gods&Kings" civs).

Well is it plausible for each civ to have 1 more UU/UB or should i just wish for more/other gameplay features?

 

[AriochIV]

That seems very unlikely. In addition to the problem of finding good candidates for primitive civilizations, the plain fact is that if Firaxis is going to create ~25 new units and buildings, they'd get a lot more bang for their asset-creation buck by putting them in ~12 new civilizations instead.

 

[SuperWaffle247]

I can see new UUs/UBs in a hypothetical second expansion, but not this one.

 

[CivOasis]

Well, it WOULD be easy to find good candidates for all civs, and I would enjoy it, but I don't think it'll happen in this expansion (unit number mentioned in original discussions)

 

[turingmachine]

Well, there's also how to integrate the civs that have a UI in the formula. Does the UI count as a UB so they now get another UU? Will some civs with 2 UUs get a UI instead of a UB?

 

[headcase]

Yeah UI and UB are pretty similar.

Then in the other category, you have UUs and UGPs.

 

[aluelkdf]

I think it would make sense for some civs to have different UA, depending what era they are in. The UU shouldn't change becasue that is already era dependent. For example, Germany's UA may be a bonus vs. barbarians in the early game, but by the late game maybe they should have a science UA instead. And America's early UA could be manifest destiny, but in the late game it could be an advantage with city states (similar to what Greece has). This would simulate America's strong influence in the world that allows them to get smaller countries to do what they want. Maybe China should get some sort of production bonus (due being the factory of the world) in the late game instead of the general UA.

 

[ehecatzin]

I dont think so, If anything we should see how much variety and specialization will religion bring to the table before wanting more buildings.

So, with that in mind, maybe specialization in certain religion combined with policies will give us that extra flavor we want for every civ.

 

[dagriggstar]

Given we already have very generic things like "Mud Pyramid Mosque" and "Paper maker" already, what else are they going to add

"Building" ?

The only real way to get more uniques is to mod it in.

 

[Buccaneer]

Well, it WOULD be easy to find good candidates for all civs, and I would enjoy it, but I don't think it'll happen in this expansion (unit number mentioned in original discussions)

No, it definitely would not be easy. It's not like a mod that adds stuff just because it's cool. Each new unit/building has to have a balance if you are adding them to existing uu/ub choices (think of the AI). That would be much more harder to do than adding the new uu/ub to new civs, who will simply take the team spot in any game. Still, it is a little challenging to even make new uu/ub not too over-powered or too under-powered.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

No, it definitely would not be easy. It's not like a mod that adds stuff just because it's cool. Each new unit/building has to have a balance if you are adding them to existing uu/ub choices (think of the AI). That would be much more harder to do than adding the new uu/ub to new civs, who will simply take the team spot in any game. Still, it is a little challenging to even make new uu/ub not too over-powered or too under-powered.

As he said. It's easy to grab a history book and find a name for a new unit. But making it distinct from the existing units, while still balanced, is the challenge. After all, look at how many units there already are that are just variants on warriors.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Actually, for a lot of units, it really isn't even all that easy to grab it in a history book. A. Historians didn't cover these things. B. A lot of cultures didn't even name them. Using Civ4 as an example, Quechua Warrior, Vulture, etc. are all virtually made up or at least extremely contrived (the first one is just the name of the people with "warrior" after it. The latter is named after an engraving that happened to have some vultures in it).

And Civ4 was better than Civ3 when it comes to this (I think Civ5 is the best in this category). And this is leaving aside balancing and uniqueness issues.

 

[CYZ]

That seems very unlikely. In addition to the problem of finding good candidates for primitive civilizations, the plain fact is that if Firaxis is going to create ~25 new units and buildings, they'd get a lot more bang for their asset-creation buck by putting them in ~12 new civilizations instead.

Actually, there is a way to make such an investment pay off. They could give every civ a new UU, UB or UI through an expansion. That would not only urge players to buy the expansion, but will also make DLC civs they haven't bought yet more appealing.

I agree that for some civs it would not be easy to find a new UU, UB or UI. Still, it's possible with some creativity. Especially if the ''1 UB per civ maximum'' would be let go.

I'm highly in favour of this. At some point creating more civ isn't adding that much variety because there are so many different civs already. By giving each civ 1 more UU, UB or UI it will increase the variety of each civ.

Another way to create even more variety is giving each civ a new UU, UB or UI that doesn't replace an existing unit, building or improvement. For example: America could gain the shopping mall, a building that gives 4 food and adds 1 gold per bonus resource. Since it wouldn't replace anything it would be even more unique.

I hope in the next expansion they add 1 UU, UB or UI that is truly unique and doesn't replace something else. It would not be extra work, except it needs extra attention to be balanced.

 

[bonafide11]

I think it would make sense for some civs to have different UA, depending what era they are in. The UU shouldn't change becasue that is already era dependent. For example, Germany's UA may be a bonus vs. barbarians in the early game, but by the late game maybe they should have a science UA instead. And America's early UA could be manifest destiny, but in the late game it could be an advantage with city states (similar to what Greece has). This would simulate America's strong influence in the world that allows them to get smaller countries to do what they want. Maybe China should get some sort of production bonus (due being the factory of the world) in the late game instead of the general UA.

That's how it was in Civ Revolution, and I liked it. Each era the Civ gained a new bonus. It was a cool feature, but it's not going to happen in Civ V. They're not going to revolutionize the existing game. They're just adding more features to it.

 

[CivOasis]

No, it definitely would not be easy. It's not like a mod that adds stuff just because it's cool. Each new unit/building has to have a balance if you are adding them to existing uu/ub choices (think of the AI). That would be much more harder to do than adding the new uu/ub to new civs, who will simply take the team spot in any game. Still, it is a little challenging to even make new uu/ub not too over-powered or too under-powered.

That's a balance thing, it has to do with how they are implemented, not how easy it is to find them.
It would be easy to find new unique components, for all of the civs.

 

[blac]

I think they should just add different leaders for some civs. England, or Germany could easily have two different leaders which with it's own UU/UB. I think having 3 for each wouldn't work.

 

[AriochIV]

The difficulty in finding good unique units is that while you can easily find a civilization-specific version of a particular unit, the unique unit is supposed to be superior in some way to the regular unit, and that's hard to do with a straight face in some cases. The Korean hwacha is superior to a trebuchet? Yeah, right.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Actually, it's supposed to be different from the regular unit, not necessarily superior.

 

[MAHak2]

I'm highly in favour of this. At some point creating more civ isn't adding that much variety because there are so many different civs already. By giving each civ 1 more UU, UB or UI it will increase the variety of each civ.

Agreed. It would be a good thing to make the individual civ more diverce.

Take the Mongols, at present they are all about military conquest. Historically they where highly tolerant of the indigenous relegions of their conquered subjects, they could cut the 1+ movement for horsies and then add some relegilous tolerance feature to their UA(keeping in mind the relegious aspects which will be included in "G's&K's").
Oh and then add the Yurt, which replaces the stable and further includes, 1+ food from horses(well they drinked their blood for nourishment if i remember correctly) and/or give the mobilty promotion to mounted units.

Another one. England the are all about naval dominace. Historically they had a strong merchantile tradition and where innovative industrualists. To reflect that we could add the textile manufactury, which replaces the windmill but is cheaper to built and give a gold bonus too.

Back to the qouted point, the thing is that some of the "narrowminded" civs should be changed/enriched to make it more viable for an alternative playstyle, still somewhat rooted in their history, for the different civs.

 

[turingmachine]

Agreed. It would be a good thing to make the individual civ more diverce.

Take the Mongols, at present they are all about military conquest. Historically they where highly tolerant of the indigenous relegions of their conquered subjects, they could cut the 1+ movement for horsies and then add some relegilous tolerance feature to their UA(keeping in mind the relegious aspects which will be included in "G's&K's").
Oh and then add the Yurt, which replaces the stable and further includes, 1+ food from horses(well they drinked their blood for nourishment if i remember correctly) and/or give the mobilty promotion to mounted units.

Another one. England the are all about naval dominace. Historically they had a strong merchantile tradition and where innovative industrualists. To reflect that we could add the textile manufactury, which replaces the windmill but is cheaper to built and give a gold bonus too.

Back to the qouted point, the thing is that some of the "narrowminded" civs should be changed/enriched to make it more viable for an alternative playstyle, still somewhat rooted in their history, for the different civs.

I don't agree. Adding more and more bonuses to civs that do different things will just end up creating a bunch of Jack-of-all-Trade civs which will actually hurt uniqueness in the long run. The whole point is that certain civs are supposed to have a specific focus. If that focus doesn't match your play style then choose another civ that does. You might have a civ preference for whatever reason, but behind all the aesthetic differences, they're just a maritime civ, or a financial civ, culture civ, etc. There's no point to make every civ good at everything.