Multiple unique units

[Superkrest]

i know ill get torn apart by this..but why not have some generic unit variations through out the game...no massive differences just things that give slight uperhands...through out the game...each civ having slighty better spearman or slightly worse horseman etc...

 

[Urederra]

Spain: Gladiator, Conquistador or guerrilla. You choose.

Yep!, Gladia was the name of a spanish short sword.
Guerrilla is a spanish name. It was invented to fight against Napoleon's invasion:
The Supreme Junta of Spain, meeting in Cadiz in internal exile, in an effort to rally opposition to Napoleon's onslaught, called for the creation of a "new kind of militia"—of partides or guerrillas—giving birth, thereby, to the little war" or "guerrilla warfare."

I copied and pasted that sentence from this webpage.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3213napol_spain.html

Just for you to Know.

 

[Himalia]

My suggestion is that, if a civilization has their UU in the Modern Age, then they get an extra one. Germanic Teutonic Knights (as in Conquests), the American Minuteman instead of muskateer units, et cetera. This way, civilizations wouldn't get royally screwed throughout most of the game for not having their unique unit earlier on. Especially the Americans.

That makes alot of sence considering most ancient civilizations arnt aound anymore or at least not in the way they were and again looking at more recent history there have been comparitively more breakthroughs scientifically and this often shows in warfare.

 

[Urederra]

So You can have one real Unique Unit for Spain for each era. (I know, I know, there is not eras any more).

 

[Sickman]

My suggestion is that, if a civilization has their UU in the Modern Age, then they get an extra one.

Why?
That would the most unbalancing factor of whole game that certain civs would get more than one unique unit while others would get only one. Even though that one could be made better than those two combined but still.

I think if example americans get their unique unit in modern age they should be such that affect actual gameplay (being more powerful) instead of them getting bad modern age unit for dessert and another one to help them overcome earlier foes.

It wouldn't really help Americans get example minutemen in industrial era and some modern age unit if example many nations bordering them would get their multiple unique units in the ancient and medieval era at the same time. Example Americans bordered by Egypt, Aztecs, Rome and Greece would get them screwed especially if there are multiple unique units. Defending against Warchariots, Jaguar warriors, Praetorians and Hoplites should be enough of challenge.

Of course one option could be that each civ would have to choose between two unique units. Example Greece would have to use either Hoplites or Companion cavalry for their unique unit in single game.

What I fear is that certain civs would be overly powerful in certain eras and because of that these all wonderful unique units would have to be "watered-down" versions so the game wouldn't become unbalanced in certain times.

If multiple unique units would be done I think the main key would be have about the same movement and strength of those normal units but would have certain special characteristics similar to those of promotional ones in order to simulate their specialty. In that way maybe more and more unique units could be done but right now Firaxis is already counting down number of units in favor of promotions. So I hardly see this as option but of course good idea for modmaking if someone could balance all these out.

Edit:
I would pick Conquistador for Spain anyday.
They highlighted the era of Spain as total world power.
Another choice would be big naval vessel.

 

[Illuminatiscott]

i know ill get torn apart by this..but why not have some generic unit variations through out the game...no massive differences just things that give slight uperhands...through out the game...each civ having slighty better spearman or slightly worse horseman etc...

Bingo. That is the best alternative to multiple unique units I have heard. That could be easily doable, even right now. but if not, post your comment on the "the expansion" thread.

 

[DSa]

what is tarkan??

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

I guess, more useful UU's will do it, too...

Scrap the Kossacks, the musketeers and the F-15 and get me some real UU's. A Kossack is an attack unit, so give me an attack bonus; the musketeer is a defensive unit, so give me a defend bonus. The F-15 is totally useless, gimme some good marines with a +2 on attack!

That would be easier and more efficient than extra UU's...

 

[Himalia]

I really dont see what the issue is with some nations getting better deals than others. Yes some countris will do very well out of this. Off hand England and America spring to mind just to mention a couple, theres certainly more. But they would have to wait to later stages in the game to get these benefits. Take some of the ancient civilizations for example the Incas or Aztecs they get there UU early on but lets face it not much if anything later in the game. They need to take full advantage early on while some of the other nations must be patient to get whats due to them. So some nations will b better than others i can live with that. At the very least this could just be some option that you can turn off if you dont like it.

 

[OLX]

I dunno about you, but I'm planning on using the units people make to design Custom Armies for each Civ. I Plan to give maybe three UUs Unique stats (So I'll have one for each Technological Period) But aside from that, all the others will be redesigns with Regular Stats.

 

[Himalia]

I use stacks of extras on the games i play on multiplayer most nations have so much added to them its great and it would seem all that play these games agree. I still play the normal rules as well tho.

 

[Sickman]

I think some really are quite optimistic that you can comeup with loads of unique units for different civs.

How many different unique units you can come up to example two native american civilizations? Let's take Iroquois and Sioux as example. Of course you can come up with nice names and all but can you come up useful solutions for their special skills that they really can compete with other civs unique units that might have much stronger characteristics?
And in my opinion Civs should be as balanced as possible to be played. None of the civs should be too powerful and none of them too weak.

I would gladly welcome more unique units but there are more interesting things to be added to the game so this isn't actually in top of my wishlist. If we get more unique units, we might not get other improvements and upgrades. So do you really want to enchance gameplay by adding just more flavor units when things like civil war and things alike might not get in?
I wouldn't. I rather see generic units (possibly more with more customizing option) than more unique units.
In this sense the option to "tick these off" isn't really working one because this improvement wouldn't add new dimension to the gameplay (and entirely new strategy) but instead it would just add more choices to existing option. Also the problem not to choose these to the game by player could lead into imbalancing of the game which Civ team would have needed to avoid when adding more unique units.

Of course multiple unique units would each civ feel to play whole lot differently but my biggest opposition is indeed balance. I feel very uneasy about the idea that player playing example with Americans would have to just "hang on there" to the industrial/modern ages before they could mount challenge. By adding more than one multiple unit would increase the weight of importance of these unique units and would mean that generic units couldn't match them in certain time (or what would be the idea of having these units?)

Only option in my opinion for to add more multiple units would be add such units that should self-evidently to be in the game in first place. Adding strange units that have no historical background or have no real gameplay effects would be just waste of time and energy. So if people can come up with GOOD choices for each civ that add value to the playing with these civs, units would have real historical background and aren't overly powerful but have "special skills and purposes" I wouldn't mind adding two or more multiple units for each civ. If the amount of special units would differ from civ to civ then those that have fewer units should have more powerful ones than others. But still each units should be useful and not just add eye-candy and "imagined" variety while the game would be either the same as before or just terribly imbalanced.

 

[Himalia]

Game balance is of course important to any game. But one of th great things about Civilization is how easy it is to mod it so everything can have the game just how they like it and if you play multiplayer as long as everyone is aware of any rule changes its ok.

 

[Illuminatiscott]

Any chance we may drift back ON topic?

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Illuminatiscott, I didn't realize a discussion of the gameplay implications of multiple unique units was off topic for a thread about multiple unique units. We need to decide if muu should be in at all and if so, how, before we can decide which ones belong in.

First, here's an idea for allowing multiple unique units that doesn't conflict with civ balance.

You have at least one unique unit for each unit, not each civ. For instance, the hopite is the unique unit for spearmen, not the Greeks. Starting out, none of the civs have UUs assigned to them. However, when you achieve a Golden Age, you are allowed to choose amongst the units you can currently build and upgrade one of them to that unit's UU. For instance, I'm America and I hit a golden age in the Ancient Era. I can either choose to upgrade my swordsmen to Legionaires or Immortals, my spearmen to Hopites or NMercs, or my archers to Bowmen (Babylonian would be a silly monker here). Civs that react multiple Golden Ages could have multiple UUs, rewarding effective players (obviously, since Golden Ages lead to UUs, UU victories could no longer kick off a Golden Age). All existing units of that type would automatically upgrade to the unique type (no money spent necessary).

On one hand, this fits with the spirit of the game, since the Indians never built the Sistine Chapel nor did the Aztecs ever last long enough to build fighter planes. On the other hand, this serves to decrease the differences between the various civs, which is something I'm against in general. I liked how Civ III made the civs more unique than just their color, starting techs, and aggression level. I don't want to move against that, without a corresponding increase in uniqueness in some other way.

Thoughts?

Second, it seems that part of the desire for multiple unique units comes from the fact that certain civs (like America) have awful ones. Which unique units would folks include, if muu could be included and balanced properly? Which units would you take out if only one uu could be included?

For me:
* if only one uu, keep this one.
America: Minute Men* (muskets that treat all terrain as roads), F15s (C3C model)
Russia: MiGs (Advanced Fighter), Cossacks*
England: English Longbow, Man O War*

that's all for now...

 

[Son_Of_Dido]

Okay, how about this:

Each Leader has a Unique Unit.

Or

Every Civ gets 2, but each one is in different eras. (Example: Americans have Minutemen instead of regular Musketeers during the middle ages AND, after those have been long obsolete, in the modern era, they get the F-15. OR, they get the Minutemen (only) under Washington and the F-15 (only) under Roosevelt [yes I know that's not very historically accurate, but just pretend, okay? ]

I think either system would keep a relative balance of UU power while elminating the disadvantage that currently exists with, say, the Persians able to get Immortals very early while the Americans have to hang in there forever to be able to build their F-15.

 

[Himalia]

I like the idea that some nations would have to wait. Yes America will get some great troops later in the game. But historically they are a relatively new nation thats why they must wait. I usually play the English on the game i would certainly have to wait for some of there UU. Such as some kind of naval vessel, the Spitfire prehaps ?, certainly the Red Coats tho just to name a few.

 

[GoodGame]

I like the idea of multiple leaders per civ, and then tying a leader to a set of traditional CIV3 attributes + a UU. Ideally it'd be at least semi-historical, and tie a historical UU to the leader (not F15 jet to Abraham Lincoln, but say Repeating Rifle Cavalry to Abraham Lincoln).

So 1 UU : leader in the game.

On that note, why not open all the possible leaders up to any civ?

 

[Sickman]

I liked how Civ III made the civs more unique than just their color, starting techs, and aggression level. I don't want to move against that, without a corresponding increase in uniqueness in some other way.

Thoughts?

Second, it seems that part of the desire for multiple unique units comes from the fact that certain civs (like America) have awful ones. Which unique units would folks include, if muu could be included and balanced properly? Which units would you take out if only one uu could be included?

America: Minute Men* (muskets that treat all terrain as roads), F15s (C3C model)
Russia: MiGs (Advanced Fighter), Cossacks*
England: English Longbow, Man O War*

I thought this thread was about the overall idea of implenting more unique units rather than just decide what are various unit options for multiple unique units.

First of all I'm pretty much against the idea of generic unique units.
I think the main point is to add flavor to the game so with each civ the game would be different to play with. The idea of each leader have their own unit is pretty nice but have hard time believing it would actually work as there are leaders that don't probably fit the time period of unique units.

To maintain game balance I think unique units of same civ should appear in different eras or appear in same era but example would need extra techs to be researched (or true different paths of research)which would mean that maybe one of the units would be picked rather than both.

And I not against waiting for unique units with some units but the problem is as I stated that the multiple unique units would basically double the pressure these civs are already facing when other civs get their units earlier (currently it's tough to go through ancient times and basically everything can be over in medieval era while after that it gets whole lot easier) and when it comes to adding units into the game, it's easier to come up with ancient/medieval unique units with special traits compared to other units of same era while modern ones are so much similar to each other which means that picked units don't represent any advantage of those units having in real world over others similar of the same period.

Example one might say what is so special about Russian Migs they should be added? Do you consider them to be so powerful compared to other fighters in the real world that they have made their rightful claim to be in the game?
What comes to the minutemen of US, even though they sound alright, at the sametime they hardly faced more than short period of action during their time and against forces very much unequal to minutemen in sense how they were used to work in that enviroment. Does this mean because they fought in their home soil and backwoods that they should bonus of "treats all terrains as roads". Giving them that ability would actually make them more as of offensive unit rather than defensive and how many of you have heard minutemen attacking any country?
I wouldn't be against adding them as unique unit but if there are two unique units for each civ there are many to pick from for Americans likes of Aircraft carrier, Marine, P-51 Mustang, F-15, B-52 Stratofortress and Abrams armor.
For English there are also few choices: Longbow, Red Coat, Man-O-War, Spitfire and Harrier Jump Jet.
These to name a view.

But it gets complicated with civs like Iroquois. Their wars and battles they fought could be considered as "just small disputes" compared to those example that French have example fought during Napoleonic Wars. How you can come up with units of signifance for such civ(s)? And they aren't the only ones. How about the Mali? Hardly anyone even knows who they actually are let alone to imagine them having really special unique units.

 

[Illuminatiscott]

You could have multiple unique units in one age. It may seem unbalanced, but there are many civilization who were on top of the world in one age and bottom-of-the-barrel in the next e.g. the Aztecs.