Most and least interesting UB's?

[Antilogic]

And besides, with only a handful of "capturable" buildings present in a city early in the game, like granaries, lighthouses, markets, and courthouses, the probability you are going to get decent infrastructure intact on capture is remarkably low.

That's more of a factor late game.

 

[AfterShafter]

What kind of interests me is that a lot of people are describing really powerful UB's that just load on basic commodities in substantial quantities as interesting, while describing ones that have very odd abilities that are at best situationally useful, but are very distinctive, as boring.

 

[sydhe]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the Citadel, which replaces the castle and gives you really powerful siege units. Not quite up to the Hippodrome, but it's kind of interesting in a Totem Pole kind of way.

Then there's the Hamman, which assures your troops are nice and clean when they go into battle.

I'd put the Baray as about the least interesting.

 

[PaulisKhan]

Interesting because they can revolutionise the best way to play a particular civ (ie outweigh Traits and UUs)

Dike
Totem Pole
Ziggurat
Sacrifical Altar
(I would put citadel here if it didn't obselete so damned fast and the roman forum if it wasn't outclassed by the roman UU)

Boring because they change nothing about how you play the civ, just help do what you do a little bit better
Stock Exchange
Mint
Apothecary
etc

It's funny, because the SE, Mint and Apothecary are 3 of my favourite UBs >.<

 

[r_rolo1]

(I would put citadel here if it didn't obselete so damned fast (....)

This only means that you're researching economics too early

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This only means that you're researching economics too early

Probably b/c he specializes in super early space wins and whores corps .

 

[Iranon]

@ PaulisKhan: I already mentioned the Stock exchange as mechanically boring... but if it's the final reason to do a total cottage spam (no production cities apart from the ones getting appropriate national wonder, possibly no industrialisation ever in most of the empire) I think the impact on overall strategy is quite profound.

*

Regarding the citadel: I think Spain gives some rather good reasons to deviate from the norm. Mercantilism is a perfectly fine civic anyway, and retaining the additional domestic trade routes from castles and the Great Lighthouse for a long time is a nice and underexplored variant.

With Conquistadors and better siege, possibly up to artillery, I think Spain is very nicely set up to push for domination. The UU definitely helps (shame it's affected by walls, unlike the parent unit).

 

[PaulisKhan]

Haha, loving the discussion. Great way to kill time when I can't play civ.

I think I need to mix things up a bit to keep my games fresh. Citadel promoted cannons here I come!!!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

CR III siege is incredibly powerful, even against contemporary defenders. Obviously the first unit available for that w/ spain is the treb, but bombardment vs castles still sucks .

IMO spains UB essentially = a cannon UU, unless you want to put of some important things. If one goes the $$$ rush route delaying economics ----> AL hurts less and you can go the physics ----> arty route and retain CR III siege, using a combination of cavalry, rifles, anti-tanks, and later SAMS in the stack instead. Infantry itself is a problem to such a stack though, and is probably the best default-era unit in the entire game, so I rarely delay AL regardless...

 

[puzzlomat]

I agree with you themeinteam.........that is great what you sed.....

 

[r_rolo1]

CR III siege is incredibly powerful, even against contemporary defenders. Obviously the first unit available for that w/ spain is the treb, but bombardment vs castles still sucks .

IMO spains UB essentially = a cannon UU, unless you want to put of some important things. If one goes the $$$ rush route delaying economics ----> AL hurts less and you can go the physics ----> arty route and retain CR III siege, using a combination of cavalry, rifles, anti-tanks, and later SAMS in the stack instead. Infantry itself is a problem to such a stack though, and is probably the best default-era unit in the entire game, so I rarely delay AL regardless...

Pretty much what I was going to say. The main reason that people think that Spain UB has a short span is because they got too much love for economics..... sometimes without even noticing. Castles also give 1 trade route as well anyway ...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Pretty much what I was going to say. The main reason that people think that Spain UB has a short span is because they got too much love for economics..... sometimes without even noticing. Castles also give 1 trade route as well anyway ...

Maybe economics shouldn't obsolete castles? Private property rights is an incredibly important requirement as defined in economics ----> castles as defensive structures help protect property from invasion.

Generally walls/castles obsolete ridiculously early in civ, and I don't see a basis for doing so in game balance either.

 

[Jet]

In my opinion Economics not obsoleting Castles, with no other changes, would be less balanced than the current way.

I partly agree with the sentiment about Castle life span, but I wouldn't say they obsolete too late. I'd instead say they have a short life span for humans, because humans build them late, because the scientist lightbulb path is overpowered. And maybe because AIs aren't enough of a threat to human cities, although I'm not so sure about that part.

Maybe the dynamic is a bit different in MP.

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, to say the truth, I guess that the devs just wanted to make gunpowder age units life easier than the one of medieval counterparts to compensate the lack of CR promos.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In my opinion Economics not obsoleting Castles, with no other changes, would be less balanced than the current way.

I partly agree with the sentiment about Castle life span, but I wouldn't say they obsolete too late. I'd instead say they have a short life span for humans, because humans build them too late, because the scientist lightbulb path is overpowered. And maybe because AIs aren't enough of a threat to human cities, although I'm not so sure about that part.

The problem is that there is minimal variance between tech paths for the AI, such that it forces the human down another tech path if he wants to succeed.

Economics could remove the trade route bonus from castles without making them obsolete. It's extremely difficult to make a case that muskets/rifles can ignore them, too. Military tactics use some forms of fortification even today, and bullets don't just go whizzing through as if they weren't there at all, the attacker must compensate for them. This is not represented well when magic muskets and rifles can fly over moats or fire ballistic arcing heat-seeking bullets to kill defenders using stone fortifications for cover.

Even cannon balls couldn't completely ignore stone fortification. The life span of these structures is indeed too short, and I've not seen any great balance arguments for why it is the way it is.

Edit:

Well, to say the truth, I guess that the devs just wanted to make gunpowder age units life easier than the one of medieval counterparts to compensate the lack of CR promos.

Why?

 

[r_rolo1]

I do not agree with their decision, TMIT. I'm just guessing their thought process ( to say the truth , other devs decisions baffle me, like the nebulous wordings of the trade screeen for the AI reasons to not do something )

 

[Iranon]

Imo, Castles can't be made obsolete at a sensible time in Civ4 without major modifications.

The thing to obsolete them would be cannons (marking a shift towards earth-based fortifications)... but in civ cannons arrive very late, and having castles obsolete at Steel would feel slighly off as well.
We also have the problem that there is no era-appropriate defensive building to secure one against gunpowder-era units... but if there was gunpowder units might need to be rebalanced and so on.

*

On a different note, I wouldn't say the game pushes one to obsolete castles quickly. Economics usually comes after Liberalism, and the only tech it unlocks is Corporation. Naturally, avoiding it for a very long time means you won't get corporations, but you can get State Property. You can't get to Infantry, but you can blow things up with Cannons/Artillery.

Economics and Corporation can get rid of up to 3 trade routes (Great Lighthouse, Castles) while providing only one for free. I have left both alone for a long time, with some succes.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I think the Stele is pretty useless for most games, and boring. If you're not going for a cultural victory you probably don't need to build monuments anyway since the only Ethiopian leader is CRE already. The Dun is pretty lame too, but at least both of the Celtic leaders have decent traits.

Most interesting is probably the sacrificial altar, because it encourages and rewards bloodlust and a bit of roleplaying, so it's high on flavor.

The stock culture bonus for the creative trait is for wars and land-grabs, not culture wins. Combine it with Steles and you have cities that pop borders really fast which is great when expanding, either peacefully or not. They make Zara's culture crush pretty much unbeatable. It's even better when you build Stonehenge so you get them instantly in every city.

 

[Camikaze]

I'll my vote in for the Forum, for being the only non-wonder building (right?) to increase GP output.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

On the other hand, if you happen to be playing as Spain, you'll be more likely to build Citadels fast for the bonus to siege weapons and delay obsoleting it for as long as possible. But it's definitely true that the majority of buildings that never go obsolete have that distinct advantage over the handful of ones that do. And the ones that come in early and never go obsolete even moreso.