It seems many UUs dont replace any other unit

[Seek]

Non-replacement units actually sound *easier* to balance as I see it:

1. Shorter lifespan means their strength can be more fine-tuned than if they were shoehorned in on an earlier unit.
2. Can make them not upgradable to, so you have to build them all from scratch when they come on line.
3. Can place them at very different techs/civics which might be out of the way or require a different focus for the civ.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Non-replacement units actually sound *easier* to balance as I see it:

1. Shorter lifespan means their strength can be more fine-tuned than if they were shoehorned in on an earlier unit.
2. Can make them not upgradable to, so you have to build them all from scratch when they come on line.
3. Can place them at very different techs/civics which might be out of the way or require a different focus for the civ.

1. Short lifespan for unique units doesn't sound right. They need to be important for the civ.

2. Making them harder to build would increase the problem, not decrease it. It would be even viable for people to skip those unique units altogether.

3. This could be good, like ability for dedicated culture civ to still build decent units. But in big picture it doesn't change anything. You even get those units earlier than the weaker unit of the same niche, making this unit redundant, or it comes too late, making UU redundant.

 

[Seek]

1. Short lifespan for unique units doesn't sound right. They need to be important for the civ.

2. Making them harder to build would increase the problem, not decrease it. It would be even viable for people to skip those unique units altogether.

3. This could be good, like ability for dedicated culture civ to still build decent units. But in big picture it doesn't change anything. You even get those units earlier than the weaker unit of the same niche, making this unit redundant, or it comes too late, making UU redundant.

1. That doesn't necessarily follow. If Samurai, say, have approximately the same strength as a musket (they don't, but for the sake of argument) but come one full era before the musket they will be a fearsome unit indeed. And instead of "short lifespan" I should have written "shorter lifespan" than a non-UU, it seems like the UUs we've seen have a decently long lifespan - plus, if a UU is strong enough, there may be some that will be useful long after they're technically obsolete (for example, ranged mounted units in Civ 5 like the Camel Archer or Keshik).

2. I'm not sure what you mean, I think it would be easier to balance a very strong UU if it must be built from scratch: If one can mass-upgrade the moment the tech is researched it stands to reason that the UU would be balanced toward the weaker end of things. If built from scratch it can be stronger.

3. Re: redundancy of regular units - possibly true, depends on what their roles are. Samurai and Pikes are both unlocked at the same tech and the Samurai is stronger than the Pike so why even include it? Because the Pike offers defense against mounted, so it can fill a different role. Re: UU redundancy - well that's only going to happen if the UU is balanced downward (ie, it's just weak and not worth getting anyway) or if for some reason you don't plan for it.

The point I am trying to make is that since UUs aren't always tied to a normal unit now the devs have the freedom to really fine-tune their abilities, costs and strength.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The point I am trying to make is that since UUs aren't always tied to a normal unit now the devs have the freedom to really fine-tune their abilities, costs and strength.

I'm not arguing this. I'm speaking about different thing. If you add a new unit into existing niche, you some of those units get shorter effective lifespan, up to being totally useless. It's not matter how you place it - on different branches, on different trees, with upgrades or without. In the end you'll have more units within the same timeframe.

 

[Seek]

I'm not arguing this. I'm speaking about different thing. If you add a new unit into existing niche, you some of those units get shorter effective lifespan, up to being totally useless. It's not matter how you place it - on different branches, on different trees, with upgrades or without. In the end you'll have more units within the same timeframe.

Ok, well I'm not sure what you're getting at then - are you saying that just because there will be more units in an era they will always be imbalanced? I don't see the logic. Just because there is another unit during a specific time period does not mean that it will necessarily be imbalanced. Presumably the non-replacement UUs will fill different roles that similar, normal units, and if not then normal units may be ignored, not really a big deal.

Of course I have no doubt that there will be tons of imbalanced units at release but that's beside the point.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Ok, well I'm not sure what you're getting at then - are you saying that just because there will be more units in an era they will always be imbalanced?

I don't say anything about balance.

What I'm speaking about literally is. UU need to be important for the civilization. To do so, they need to have significant effective lifespan. If they don't replace any unit and don't take any free niche, they can't. Unless they completely push out other unit from the same niche, which doesn't differ from replacing.

 

[Seek]

I don't say anything about balance.

Then you'll understand my confusion, you quoted my post which was solely about balancing UUs.

What I'm speaking about literally is. UU need to be important for the civilization. To do so, they need to have significant effective lifespan. If they don't replace any unit and don't take any free niche, they can't. Unless they completely push out other unit from the same niche, which doesn't differ from replacing.

Sure, I don't disagree. Hopefully UUs will have their own niche, of course.