Most Anticipated Change to Older UAs?

[SammyKhalifa]

Ah, forgot about that. Very true. Looking forward for it

When I said Songhai had weak UA, that was also based on the G&K info about defensive embarkation promotion becoming universal.

Nah, I agree that the ABILIITY isn't (won't be) that hot, but I think their building and unit (and the big cash from killing camps) make up for it. I think they can just lose part of their UA and not blink.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

I voted for America, not because their UA is bad or weak in any way, but just because it feels "boring" compared to a lot of other UAs. I'm not sure what I would change it to.

 

[bcaiko]

In one of the articles they mentioned that you can bully city states, move your army close and demand tribute.
If Mongolia is 30% more threatening then that could be usefull.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. What fun would that be! Fits perfectly with the Mongols.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

Nah, I agree that the ABILIITY isn't (won't be) that hot, but I think their building and unit (and the big cash from killing camps) make up for it. I think they can just lose part of their UA and not blink.

I don't think they will just completely remove a portion of their UA and call it a day. At the very least I'd think +movement or combat strength to embarked units.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. What fun would that be! Fits perfectly with the Mongols.

Would be nice. However, I don't think every ability needs to conform to new features. Rather, I think the important question is if changes to the game has weakened the ability.

Songhai is the perfect example because now every civ has defensive embarkation. But I'd also argue England got undercut because the Danes ended up getting a movement bonus for embarked units.

On the other hand, no one is directly stealing part of the Mongol ability.

 

[bcaiko]

Would be nice. However, I don't think every ability needs to conform to new features. Rather, I think the important question is if changes to the game has weakened the ability.

Songhai is the perfect example because now every civ has defensive embarkation. But I'd also argue England got undercut because the Danes ended up getting a movement bonus for embarked units.

On the other hand, no one is directly stealing part of the Mongol ability.

I generally agree with you. I don't think we need to overhaul a bunch of the existing UAs. Just saying if this change was made, it would be fun.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, but sometimes the most logical civs to add to would be the rich getting richer. For example, Siam should probably get even more faith from religious city-states.

 

[shaglio]

I don't think they will just completely remove a portion of their UA and call it a day. At the very least I'd think +movement or combat strength to embarked units.

Or maybe they'll get a defensive bonus for embarked units. I'm not sure how exactly the embarked defense will work - will a unit get it's full strength when embarked or only a percentage (I never really paid attention while playing with the Songhai)? If, hypothetically, a normal embarked unit will get 75% of it's strength (so a 20 strength unit will have a 15 strength when embarked), then perhaps the Songhai will get 100%.

EDIT: In hindsight, I think that's what you meant by "combat strength to embarked units."

 

[Mark the Bold]

Here's my opinion of what America should get for their UA, as I do think it needs a boost:

I think America should keep their current UA, but also get a, say -10% to -20% cost to upgrade obsolete military units. The exact percentage is flexible.

My reason?

With the exception of very recent history, America never entered a war with the best military technology but almost always ended the war with it. I.e., Union Forces in civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Unlike virtually all the western / asian militaries, America has never stubbornly clung to obsolete technology for their military out of vanities of honor, tradition, etc. etc.


OR another option would be:

Cities with or (without ?) a factory gain a +10% to 25% production increase in military or naval units DURING warfare with a another Civ (not a city state).

A historian once wrote, that America's greatest contribution to WWII was a factory in Michigan that produced a fully operational B17 every hour, 24 hours a day. In brief, once mobilized for war, American economy can produce military machines faster than any army on the planet can destroy them.


I know this sounds like a "rah-rah- go-America", but I believe that either of these two UA's would not be too OP'd and more in line with their historical strengths than +1 sight or tile buying.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Here's my opinion of what America should get for their UA, as I do think it needs a boost:

I think America should keep their current UA, but also get a, say -10% to -20% cost to upgrade obsolete military units. The exact percentage is flexible.

My reason?

With the exception of very recent history, America never entered a war with the best military technology but almost always ended the war with it. I.e., Union Forces in civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Unlike virtually all the western / asian militaries, America has never stubbornly clung to obsolete technology for their military out of vanities of honor, tradition, etc. etc.


OR another option would be:

Cities with or (without ?) a factory gain a +10% to 25% production increase in military or naval units DURING warfare with a another Civ (not a city state).

A historian once wrote, that America's greatest contribution to WWII was a factory in Michigan that produced a fully operational B17 every hour, 24 hours a day. In brief, once mobilized for war, American economy can produce military machines faster than any army on the planet can destroy them.


I know this sounds like a "rah-rah- go-America", but I believe that either of these two UA's would not be too OP'd and more in line with their historical strengths than +1 sight or tile buying.

That makes it a good UA, sure, but it changes America from an expansion-focused civ to another war-focused civ, and there's already too many of those.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I have an idea.

America - Manifest Destiny: Settlers require half the normal amount of hammers.

 

[Mark the Bold]

That makes it a good UA, sure, but it changes America from an expansion-focused civ to another war-focused civ, and there's already too many of those.

Well I guess I play too much multiplayer where only the civs with military strengths survive past turn 100 so I am biased. +1 sight on MP map = joke. i.e., Hey guys at least I can see the 30 Mohawk warriors one turn before y'all can.


Mango's is a good one, but coupled with Liberty SP's it might make them broken with a > Emperor difficulty AI. LoL, a 2-turn settler construction rate +500 happiness bonus = runaway AI on every map.


How about this for non-military UA? (+1 sight for units. +1 movement for settlers and workers. 5 combat strength for settlers (same as scout). Culture tile spreads +5-10% instead of purchase bonus when Civ is happy. +5% City Growth rate when Civ is happy.)

None of these are overly powerful, but would certainly promote an expansionist game style.

 

[Tabarnak]

5 combat strength for settlers (same as scout).

Why not? I prefer workers though. They have a pick and a rake in their hands after all. These can hurt!

 

[GenjiKhan]

Here's my opinion of what America should get for their UA, as I do think it needs a boost:

I think America should keep their current UA, but also get a, say -10% to -20% cost to upgrade obsolete military units. The exact percentage is flexible.

My reason?

With the exception of very recent history, America never entered a war with the best military technology but almost always ended the war with it. I.e., Union Forces in civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Unlike virtually all the western / asian militaries, America has never stubbornly clung to obsolete technology for their military out of vanities of honor, tradition, etc. etc.


OR another option would be:

Cities with or (without ?) a factory gain a +10% to 25% production increase in military or naval units DURING warfare with a another Civ (not a city state).

A historian once wrote, that America's greatest contribution to WWII was a factory in Michigan that produced a fully operational B17 every hour, 24 hours a day. In brief, once mobilized for war, American economy can produce military machines faster than any army on the planet can destroy them.


I know this sounds like a "rah-rah- go-America", but I believe that either of these two UA's would not be too OP'd and more in line with their historical strengths than +1 sight or tile buying.

The problem with that is that they're very overpowering,because it doesn't reward a player who tries to develop their cities before going war . And the second UA could be easily abused,if you dow with a civ that is so far away from you that you'll never see their troops for entire eras or dow a civ that has a army so puny that'll never be a threat to you .

I have an idea.

America - Manifest Destiny: Settlers require half the normal amount of hammers.

With Collective Rule,it'll make USA too overpowered and it's historic inaccurrate,because Western Expansion was mainly drove by the Europians immigrants,not by those who already lived in Eastern USA .

How about this for non-military UA? (+1 sight for units. +1 movement for settlers and workers. 5 combat strength for settlers (same as scout). Culture tile spreads +5-10% instead of purchase bonus when Civ is happy. +5% City Growth rate when Civ is happy.)

None of these are overly powerful, but would certainly promote an expansionist game style.

Early advantages are more powerful than late advantages,so that's the reason why these boost are overpowered .
.
.
.
.
.
If there's really a need to boost the USA UA,I'd say they could receive a discount of 50% to expand tiles,along with the discount .

 

[bonafide11]

Why are we changing UAs now just for the sake of changing them? There's nothing wrong with the US as it is. Firaxis needs to release more details about the game before CFC ends up inventing an entire new game through all this speculation on the site.

 

[BuilderFTW]

Just throwing my two cents in from a multiplayer perspective. I am sure many people would disagree with some of them, its always interesting to see how the two games are different.

• Germany's Pikeman to be improved so it isn't just a unit you spam. I would rather it did something interesting (currently all it is is deadly and boring).
  
• France's culture to be toned down or moved back so it does not start right away (maybe moved back to start in classical)
  
• Rome to be a little less strong (nerfing any part would help)
  
• India's ability should be reworked, I just don't like the way India's ability is the only one with a penalty(which happens to make it VERY hard to play competitively)
  
• Ottoman ability reworked as well-its currently useless on land maps
  
• I would like to see the longbow nerfed, and other English abilities be useful on land
  

 

[Louis XXIV]

Why are we changing UAs now just for the sake of changing them? There's nothing wrong with the US as it is. Firaxis needs to release more details about the game before CFC ends up inventing an entire new game through all this speculation on the site.

Yeah, I suggested limiting it to abilities that have been cut into by other things. That list would be:

England (Danes cut into it)
Songhai (automatic defensive embark cuts into it)
Arabs (Dutch ability cuts into Bazaar)
Aztecs (Honor tree cuts into it)

I can't think of any others.

Out of these, England was weak to begin with, so it makes sense they've improved it. Arabs didn't have their UA cut into, but their UB, so I'm not sure how to handle it. Aztecs are probably fine. The ability to get a bonus against both barbarian and civ units is better and they still have a very strong UB and a good UU.

Songhai is the biggest question. I found their ability to be good, not great and their UU good but not great. They lost part of their UA, but the less important part. Ideally, they should boost the other part slightly, but that's it. Either way, their UB is very good so that should make up for it.

ETA: Not a UA change and possibly breaking my rule, but does anyone think the Babylonian Bowman will be changed from Archer to Composite Bow? That fits things more historically and it would be nice to have a UU for a new unit.

 

[MARDUK80]

Yeah, but sometimes the most logical civs to add to would be the rich getting richer. For example, Siam should probably get even more faith from religious city-states.

Siam has always been, in my games, too powerful. After G&K are they even more OP ?

Also Japan with Bushido - Units fight as though they were at full strength even when damaged - questions me a bit. With increased hit points from 10 to 100 there will be more damaged units and Bushido will shine even more...

ETA: Not a UA change and possibly breaking my rule, but does anyone think the Babylonian Bowman will be changed from Archer to Composite Bow? That fits things more historically and it would be nice to have a UU for a new unit.

Yeah, this is something I'd like to see happen as well.

 

[aatami]

Arabia should get buffed, thus voted the Arabs. (Arabs are weakened in G&K by the fact that the thing they are played for is also given to the dutch... But as an universal UA)

 

[wobuffet]

Arabia should get buffed, thus voted the Arabs. (Arabs are weakened in G&K by the fact that the thing they are played for is also given to the dutch... But as an universal UA)

Yeah, I was disappointed to see this. I guess the tulip thing is cool though. Arabia's Bazaar will be changed, I hope.