Most Anticipated Change to Older UAs?

[shaglio]

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.

Maybe this should be added to Manifest Destiny: When liberating another civ's Settler from barbarians, and choosing not to return it to the owner, the unit remains a Settler rather than converting to a Worker.

 

[bonafide11]

Maybe this should be added to Manifest Destiny: When liberating another civ's Settler from barbarians, and choosing not to return it to the owner, the unit remains a Settler rather than converting to a Worker.

That's such an unusual event that I can't imagine them adding that to the UA. It's not worth them typing it in and adding it to code for how rare it would happen. Again, let's not tinker with things just for the sake of it. Someone else on this forum once described an underwhelming UA change as a "punch in a pillow," and that's exactly what that is.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

That's such an unusual event that I can't imagine them adding that to the UA. It's not worth them typing it in and adding it to code for how rare it would happen. Again, let's not tinker with things just for the sake of it. Someone else on this forum once described an underwhelming UA change as a "punch in a pillow," and that's exactly what that is.

The rarity of the situation isn't really the problem. It's more the fact that it doesn't fit the theme of Manifest Destiny at all. Something like faster settler production or faster settler movement speed would be my choice. I also like the idea of settlers with combat strength. Symbolizes the hardiness of early Americans on the frontier. In-game it would translate to more bold expansion plans. It would promote exploring with your settler and founding a city in unknown territory, which fits the flavor of Manifest Destiny very well.

 

[bonafide11]

The rarity of the situation isn't really the problem. It's more the fact that it doesn't fit the theme of Manifest Destiny at all. Something like faster settler production or faster settler movement speed would be my choice. I also like the idea of settlers with combat strength. Symbolizes the hardiness of early Americans on the frontier. In-game it would translate to more bold expansion plans. It would promote exploring with your settler and founding a city in unknown territory, which fits the flavor of Manifest Destiny very well.

Well, it would fit Manifest Destiny in that it would, if it wasn't so freakin rare, allow for faster expansion, and the U.S. grew at a fast rate after it gained its independence. But the problem is it doesn't increase the U.S.'s expansion since you may capture a rival AI's settler from barbarians once every four games or so, which is really not worth them adding something to the UA for that unusual of an event.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the U.S. as it is. Why are we changing things just for the sake of changing them? The U.S. is a well balanced Civ with its UA actually fitting what it is supposed to and is probably one of the last civilizations that needs changing.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

Well, it would fit Manifest Destiny in that it would, if it wasn't so freakin rare, allow for faster expansion, and the U.S. grew at a fast rate after it gained its independence. But the problem is it doesn't increase the U.S.'s expansion since you may capture a rival AI's settler from barbarians once every four games or so, which is really not worth them adding something to the UA for that unusual of an event.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the U.S. as it is. Why are we changing things just for the sake of changing them? The U.S. is a well balanced Civ with its UA actually fitting what it is supposed to and is probably one of the last civilizations that needs changing.

We aren't changing anything, unless one of us is a dev and hasn't told anyone. We are simply speculating. What better time to revamp game content than in an expansion? Some would argue that the 10hp units were fine and didn't need to be changed, but they did anyway. If it ain't broke don't fix it, sure, but there's nothing wrong with wanting some innovation.

 

[shaglio]

Well, it would fit Manifest Destiny in that it would, if it wasn't so freakin rare, allow for faster expansion, and the U.S. grew at a fast rate after it gained its independence. But the problem is it doesn't increase the U.S.'s expansion since you may capture a rival AI's settler from barbarians once every four games or so, which is really not worth them adding something to the UA for that unusual of an event.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the U.S. as it is. Why are we changing things just for the sake of changing them? The U.S. is a well balanced Civ with its UA actually fitting what it is supposed to and is probably one of the last civilizations that needs changing.

That's why I suggested it. Some people think the American UA is fine the way it is and others find it lackluster. I figured this was a rare enough occurance that it wouldn't drastically alter the entire UA, but when it did happen it would be a nice little perk. I also tried to tie it into the fact that, as previously mentioned, most of the people who settled the western US were European immigrants rather than existing US citizens.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the current ability mirrors Manifest Destiny quite well. It mirrors the pioneering spirit of exploring west and clearing land to work it. In the United States, land was cheap, so people would start working distant lands.

Cheap settlers wouldn't be a poor fit since that too would be territory acquisition rather than population growth.

 

[shaglio]

Another one that just popped into my head for an addition to Manifest Destiny is: a 50% chance that exploring an Ancient Ruin gives a Settler in addition to one of the other results. I really worded that poorly, but hopefully you know what I mean. I.E. you get 20 Culture and a 50% chance to get a Settler.

 

[Drawmeus]

I think the current ability mirrors Manifest Destiny quite well. It mirrors the pioneering spirit of exploring west and clearing land to work it. In the United States, land was cheap, so people would start working distant lands.

Cheap settlers wouldn't be a poor fit since that too would be territory acquisition rather than population growth.

I just think it's underpowered. It's a cool idea, but it just doesn't do enough. I wouldn't mind if they retained the UA but added to it a bit at all. It just needs... something.

It doesn't help that both UUs are late game, of course. It all adds up to a civ that's going to be way behind by the time that late game rolls around.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the extra sight is quite good in combat. The Musketeer is fun to play with as well.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

I think the extra sight is quite good in combat. The Musketeer is fun to play with as well.

I agree their current UA fits the title well, I just wish it had something a bit more unique. Just combat strength on settlers with a defensive bonus to barbs would be enough to make me happy. Just something to set them apart a little more.

The extra sight only becomes powerful once you get Artillery and the B17. Otherwise its just a convenience. Also, they are Minutemen.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I think the extra sight is quite good in combat. The Musketeer is fun to play with as well.

I don't think you can appreciate how good the sight bonus is until you play part of a game as the US, then restart a different game as someone else. You feel like you can't see a thing. You don't get the goody huts as often or see the good settling spots. You need to build more scouts to cover the same territory, etc.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Also, they are Minutemen.

Yeah, I saw that I messed up. Minuteman, of course.

SammyKhalifa, I agree completely. Losing line of sight made me sad.

 

[NotSure]

Since the poll was personal preference I picked Germany, because I want a better Germany. If the poll asked which civilization needed a change to it's UA the most, I would have picked the Ottomans. Their UA is just awful.

This is a little off-topic, but does anyone else think that the Ottoman's, America and Germany would benefit more from the ability to upgrade pikes to musket men than from an improvement in their UA? Any civ that has to rely on pike spam or a unique musket unit is already going to be inferior to a civ that has a guaranteed good building, unit or ability. If you add a mediocre UA on top of that such as Barbary Corsairs, Manifest Destiny, or Furor Teutonicus then they become even more unappealing. Just my opinion... fell free to agree with me.

 

[ShahJahanII]

I think the Iroquois need a boost.
A UA as simple as theirs will get drowned out by all the new features, and it isn't that powerful now.

 

[Louis XXIV]

But they can build swordsmen without a resource cap.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Since the poll was personal preference I picked Germany, because I want a better Germany. If the poll asked which civilization needed a change to it's UA the most, I would have picked the Ottomans. Their UA is just awful.

This is a little off-topic, but does anyone else think that the Ottoman's, America and Germany would benefit more from the ability to upgrade pikes to musket men than from an improvement in their UA? Any civ that has to rely on pike spam or a unique musket unit is already going to be inferior to a civ that has a guaranteed good building, unit or ability. If you add a mediocre UA on top of that such as Barbary Corsairs, Manifest Destiny, or Furor Teutonicus then they become even more unappealing. Just my opinion... fell free to agree with me.

Personally,I'd like that they bring back(from Civ 4) the possibility to choose between 2 or 3 upgrades for obsolete units . In the case of Pikeman,this would allow to upgrade either to musketman or lancer(obviously with the loss of the bonus against mounted units) . And just like England,the Ottomans need a boost on their UA to be more valuable in sealess maps . Any guess about what kind of boost they might receive?

 

[apocalypse105]

Personally,I'd like that they bring back(from Civ 4) the possibility to choose between 2 or 3 upgrades for obsolete units . In the case of Pikeman,this would allow to upgrade either to musketman or lancer(obviously with the loss of the bonus against mounted units) . And just like England,the Ottomans need a boost on their UA to be more valuable in sealess maps . Any guess about what kind of boost they might receive?

A conquest oriented ability I don't see why they gave the ottomans a navy ability while they have 2 unqiue land units that get bonusses for beeing the offensive.
Janissary (offensive bonus 25%)
Lancer unit designed for atack

 

[bhavv]

I'm most interested in Englands changes. I already like their bonuses, but naval combat is too weak. The expansion is boosting naval combat a lot, plus giving the English an extra spy, so I'm looking forward to trying them out again and breaking away from typically playing Korea, Inca, Egypt or Babylon.

 

[EddyMcK]

Aztecs

It doesn't sound appealing at all unless you specifically want a culture vic

Spain needs more stuff too