I don't want this post to go on for longer than it needs to, but I believe that having more than one unique unit and unique building per civilization would benefit the game, and certainly open up more civilizations to more players.
Currently, each civilization only has one unique unit and unique building. For example, Bismarck gets a unique tank. A lot of players have already finished the game before tanks come in, meaning that Bismarck's unique unit rarely get going. Similarly, the American unique building is based on the supermarket; again, late in the game.
There is also the issue that gameplay with regards to units can get a bit "samey" with civilizations with very early unique units. If there was/were more than one unique unit, it would certainly make game much more varied in terms of units for the player, but also what units the player will face. It would also open more civilizations to players, as certain ones rarely get played due to late unique units and unique buildings.
A good idea, but one that will only see the light of day as a mod (and there are probably some like this already). Firaxis obviously won't expand the game's content in the ways you are suggesting.
It's definitly easier for some Civs, though. England, for example, has at least two others I can think of (Longbowmen and somesort of Naval unit) while others you could be hardpressed to find some more.
That isn't that I don't agree, I'd really like the idea, but it's difficult.
I dont think every civ should have two each. This simply is too much. In some way 2 UU/UB remove diversity rather than contribute: say you play the romans, you wont axerush and chariotrush, you'll rush with praets, which is logic and good. but assume the romans had a UU that replaces inf or rifles. then in every warmongerer game you play with the romans, you'll start wars in order to destroy other civs when you get one of those UUs. Say you have only praets, you'll attack with them. the next attack will be launched whenever you'll find yourself in a nice situation (tech lead, strat ressource, enemy busy fighting someone else...), which will make the games more divers.
Now you complaining that some UUs/UBs are late: Please, just tell me a "unique unit" of the americans, early in the game or a late native american unique unit. this is just historically apropriate as well as it contributes to diversity ALREADY AGAIN.
i dont intend to offend you, that's just my opinion...
Apart from the Fast Worker, the beauty of the Unique Unit is that for a limited period of time your civilization has a military edge - leveraging that military edge during a solitary window becomes an important part of the game. You have to carefully adjust your strategy so that you make the most of your UU...it's a highly rewarding experience if you do it well.
However once you get multiple UUs, that process of careful strategising is cheapened in a sense. The balance is upset; the game is just flooded with units that have slight edges over their generic equivalents, but there are so many that they become unremarkable.
For example you might base your strategy as the English in order to maximise the use of Redcoats - but if you have a UU in every era then the emphasis on Industrial Era expansion is lessened...you don't have to tailor your game anymore.
i would welcome the option to choose UU and UB just like we choose leaders for each civ - and since we can't choose another leader for ie. Native Americans, there should be no complaints about some civs having only one UU and UB; this would be at least some measure of justice for having some civs here only because of diversity/commercial bonus/political correctness (make your pick )
While I am against multiple U-anythings per civ, prz may possibly be on to something...
I'll have to give it some thought before I'm sure. But, of course, this is all academic, as Firaxis won't change it lol
Nah i dont like it. The whole idea of UU and UB is to give u a small bonus over a rather short period of time. If you would have multiple UU, therefor the bonus would be more "constant".
Of course all the other civs would have their UU and UB bonuses most of the time, and with this you would mutually neutralize the each others bonuses, making them a bit less special.
I like the fact that there is only ONE UU. Its give you a feeling of...well...uniqueness .
Plus it would be really hard to actually come up with all these new and, presumably, historically correct UUs for all the civs.
I wouldn't mind some particular leaders having different UB's/UU's within a civ. I mean, Qin and Mao of China, for instance - Cho Ko Nu is closer to Qin's time frame, while Mao could have something more modern. I never expect to see this, in fact I strong suspect I never will, and I also realize this complicates the "UU/UB is tied to civ, not leader" formula, but I wouldn't mind different leaders having different UU's in certain situations.
I would kind of like a mega man approach to it, where if you conquer the civ you get something from them whether it be a tech, limited UB use or limited UU use.
I would kind of like a mega man approach to it, where if you conquer the civ you get something from them whether it be a tech, limited UB use or limited UU use.
I agree some civs should have multiple unique units, but that just doesn´t do for everyone. IMO not everyone needs two or three unique units/buildings and as said before it´s hard to think of multiple UUs for everyone. They could have something else unique and balancing instead. Some civs could have multiple UBs but only one or no UU for example. And who says all the UUs should be too powerful? They could all have just a slight advantage when compared to units they replace, like +25% against something & nothing more.
Ah, well i was seeing it in a bit different light. Obviously there are more and less complex civs involved in a game, with more and less ways to influence the world, with shorter and longer lifespan. Civs like England/GB, France, China, Rome, also in some cases Russia, Germany, Spain, Arabs or others like India for ie. it's diversity during each era of existence. Uh, I guess an example would make it more obvious...
#1 Rome. For now we have a combination of truly unique (though giving flat bonus isn't really the best way to express it) infantry and forum, with bonus representing apology of republican regime, spawning great ppl thanks to implementing its values. It's hard to say this choice is in any serious way inaccurate. But i still feel it's not enough. How about UB courthouse/basilica, representing some aspects of Roman Law?
Spoiler:
In this case - its unifying function, especially after granting citizenship to virtually every free man in the Empire, not to mention well known process of assimilation of cultures. Granted, this bureaucratic machine sucked money from provinces as well. Let's give this courthouse lesser maintenance reduction in exchange for eliminating some from yearning to join motherland or fighting brothers in faith with even some partial protection against flipping and, considering Forum is pretty good UB to replace, maybe another as well. I can see it working with current UU, yet limiting warmongering in "let's crush every neighbour with praets" way because of larger costs.
How about appreciating Roman siege capabilities - with Assyrian out of the game, they're indisputable leader of Ancient Era on this field.
Spoiler:
UU Catapult with killing capabilities? or if someone thinks it's not enough - with uncapped collateral damage - a catapult able to kill several weakened units, at ie. 10% of strenght?
#2 France. We've got civ focused on LXIV times in both UU and UB. Ok then, why not have also a contradiction to UB, based on massive fortresses, built thanks to Vauban's design? UB Castle then, let's focus on war instead of culture
Spoiler:
Let's say among other things it gets gunpowder immunity through riflemen/grens, etc era?
What about UU knight - with French as probably the most impressive version of medieval tank, it's hard to think of stronger contemporary unit - Cataphracts haven't got this feudal flavor and "charging at will" attitude
Spoiler:
And remembering both English Longbows and Spanish Tertio let's make this knights earlier, a bit weaker "Cossacks" - much more mounted units to fight yet than Russian get; at the same time let them be vulnerable to archery units as well, but only with any terrain other than flat involved - while flat could grant bonus against every unit class. Anyway, I see more than one way of shaping such "heavy knights"
Spoiler:
#3 Spain - Suffice to say, they deserve something responsible for vast colonial empire they created - how about significantly cutting some of overseas maitenance for the cost of more there, considering weaker ties to central government? Ie. stronger war weariness, stronger religious strife, or simply weaker culture?. Hard to think about UB for this though.
#4 England - How about unique sea unit with unique Drydock (just for the sake of avoiding UBclone)? It feels strange playing England only as a dedicated land power.
#5 Russia - Virtually anything responsible for lower distance/n. of cities maitenance and UU Artillery with +1 Movement plus someting else? I know, i know it's late, but this Katyusha is famous enough.
#6 Germany - Reversing HRE Rathaus effect - cultural/production bonus for diversity (many centuries of also many small and smaller states with weak or trying-not-to-be-weak kaiser far, far away), paid with heavier distance/n. of cities maitenance costs or different handling of religion/happiness/city flipping/espionage
...and so on and so on...
I'm not saying these would be good choices gameplay-wise or balance-wise. If i were sure, I would make a mod instead of writing here. But essentially those civs I pointed out have more than enough to offer alternate UB/UU, especially when it comes to appreciate their longevity or complexity. Again - I wouldn't want civ with more than one UB/UU in particular game for almost every reason that has been already stated.
Ha, imagine playing against Rome and not knowing right from 4000 BC what to expect - praets or siege, warmonger or builder? It would have some interesting impact, especially in mp.
@King of Town
I would kind of like a mega man approach to it, where if you conquer the civ you get something from them whether it be a tech, limited UB use or limited UU use.
Probably one of the most logical and interesting feature "that-should-be-there-already" Of course it would give warmonger indecent bonus, so there should be a counter involved - how about making different cultures functioning like different religions in Europa Universalis? This way every conquest would give much more problems than just maitenance cost.
Then again - it's definitely "one bridge too far" concerning Civ 4
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
from yearning to join motherland or fighting brothers in faith with even some partial protection against flipping and, considering Forum is pretty good UB to replace, maybe another 
