second UU

[Bowsling]

my thought is if each civ had 2 unique units, what would they be, and what would they replace? Pick any civs.

America: Navy SEAL- F-15
Marine, Jet Fighter

Arabia: Mamelukes - ?
Knight

China: Cho Ko Nu - Rider
Crossbowman, Horse Archer

Byzantine: Dromon - Cataphract
Trireme, Knight

Canada: Mounted Police, Avro Arrow
Cavalry, Fighter

Babylon: Bowman - ?
Archer

France: Musketeer - Frank Warrior
Musketman, Knight

England: Redcoat - Sea Dog
Rifleman, Frigate

Spain: Conquistador - Galleon
Explorer, Caravel

Scandinavia: Bersek - Longship
Axeman, Galley

Egypt: War Chariot - Composite Bowman
Chariot, Archer

Rome: Flaming Catapult - Legion
Catapult, Swordsman

Greece: Hoplite - ?
Spearman

more posts later

 

[Moeb]

Better for Spain:

Spain: Conquistador - Tercio
Explorer, Pikeman


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercios

 

[buffalo6542]

my thought is if each civ had 2 unique units, what would they be, and what would they replace? Pick any civs.

Canada: Mounted Police, Avro Arrow
Cavalry, Fighter

it's the Mounties for Canada, not the mounted police

 

[RandomPerson]

Well, I think 3 is better than 2, but... (italics means 3rd if you accept my 3 idea)

-Germany-
Tiger Tank (Tank), MG42 (Machine Gun), Messerschmitt (Fighter)

-Korea-
Hwacha (Catapult), Hwarang (Archer), Turtle Ship (Galley)

-France-
Musketeer (Musketman), Chevalier (Cuirassier), Howitzer (Artillery)

-Turks (rename of Ottomans)-
Jannisarry (Musketman), Spahi (Cavalry), Bombard (Cannon)

 

[Bowsling]

@buffalo6542
I know everyone calls it mountie, but they are officially called RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) I do agree partially though, Mounted Police are a little un-uninque

 

[dirtyparrot]

I think that a 3rd UU would be over-doing it a bit. Some of these civs would already have 3 by the time that others were even close to getting their first. Even 2 might be pushing it for the same reason.

 

[rysmiel]

I think that a 3rd UU would be over-doing it a bit..

Some of us think that a single UU is overdoing it, fwiw. Inbuilt "flavour" is the enemy of civs becoming distinct through strategy and adapting to circumstance.

 

[Scilly_guy]

I suggested it could be interesting if unit buildings and unique units were earned through quests and that sort of thing. Like the first civ to circumnavigate the globe gets a new boat unit, the first to build 11 stables gets a unique mounted unit.

 

[Bowsling]

now that is a good idea, Scilly guy

 

[rysmiel]

I suggested it could be interesting if unit buildings and unique units were earned through quests and that sort of thing. Like the first civ to circumnavigate the globe gets a new boat unit, the first to build 11 stables gets a unique mounted unit.

Why "the first" ?

Why not, every civ who circumnavgiates the globe gets a new naval unit, and everyone who builds 11 stables gets a unique mounted unit ?

 

[Scilly_guy]

Well currently the first to circumnavigate gets +1 movement for all boats, and what is it in civ3? The same? Currently there is the 11 stables quest, and you get given 5 mounted units or something. I suppose there is no reason why it can't be every civ to complete tasks gets bonus units. But does it take some of the challenge out of it. Either way I think it would be better if unique units were distributed each game based on how the civ plays. It can be annoying if you can't make use of your unique unit because you are landlocked. ie Vikings unique building.

 

[rysmiel]

Well currently the first to circumnavigate gets +1 movement for all boats, and what is it in civ3? The same?

I don't think Civ 3 has this at all.

Currently there is the 11 stables quest, and you get given 5 mounted units or something. I suppose there is no reason why it can't be every civ to complete tasks gets bonus units. But does it take some of the challenge out of it.

I don't know; I suppose my preference here would be the same as with Wonders, ultimately, ie if you are going to have them have a lot of them suited to different strategies which are equally good at winning the game.

Though the difference with criteria like "build 11 stables" working for everyone is that it then empowers partially overlapping strategies, so that, for example, with wonder A and B you really do best to do quest objectives 1, 2, and 3, whereas if you have wonders C and D you do better to aim for quests 1, 5, and 27, and it is possible for countries using both those strategic plans to exist in the same game.

Either way I think it would be better if unique units were distributed each game based on how the civ plays. It can be annoying if you can't make use of your unique unit because you are landlocked. ie Vikings unique building.

Every civilisation getting access to a "unique" unit by virtue of how its gameplay works seems to me to really be fundamentally the same as a big tech tree with lots of different units which it makes sense to aim for in different circumstances, unless I am misreading you. Or rather, between

a) Vikings with access to the sea can sensibly pursue a set of Seafaring-type techs leading to a Viking longboat "unique unit", and so can Carthaginians with access to the sea;
and
b)Vikings with access to the sea can sensibly pursue a set of Seafaring-type techs leading to a Viking longboat regular unit, and so can Carthaginians with access to the sea;

I'm not seeing a functional difference; in neither case does it make any sense for landlocked Vikings (or Carthaginians) to pursue Seafaring-type techs as a priority.

 

[dirtyparrot]

^ I like the idea of having a unique small Wonder for each civ. That's a pretty good idea.

 

[Scilly_guy]

The Viking unique building is the "Trade post", a replacement to the harbour? light house? either way it requires a coastal city, so if you are the Vikings and start away from the coast you do not get the benefits of your unique building, the same as not having access to horses when you're the Mongols. You lose out on having Gers and their mounted unit.

I was just thinking that it would be interesting if civs earned unique units depending on their strategy and their situation, rather than linking them to their real world selves. I suppose being able to complete the same quests is a possibility, some quests might only make sense to be completed once. I was just thinking of the current quests in Civ IV.

Oh circumnavigation was a wonder called Magellans Voyage in Civ 3, but they replaced this with actually mapping every meridian in civ 4.

You are happy for wonders to be one of a kind? And even if you have nearly finished it you lose it, so the nearly completed beautifully painted chapel "ie Sistine Chapel" has no benefits because someone else has painted a similar one on the other side of the world? Or you have almost finished a wall around your entire civ but it is useless because some one else has completed theirs first? That doesn't make sense. So why not have quests being one of a kind too.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The Viking unique building is the "Trade post", a replacement to the harbour? light house? either way it requires a coastal city, so if you are the Vikings and start away from the coast you do not get the benefits of your unique building, the same as not having access to horses when you're the Mongols. You lose out on having Gers and their mounted unit.

I was just thinking that it would be interesting if civs earned unique units depending on their strategy and their situation, rather than linking them to their real world selves. I suppose being able to complete the same quests is a possibility, some quests might only make sense to be completed once. I was just thinking of the current quests in Civ IV.

Oh circumnavigation was a wonder called Magellans Voyage in Civ 3, but they replaced this with actually mapping every meridian in civ 4.

You are happy for wonders to be one of a kind? And even if you have nearly finished it you lose it, so the nearly completed beautifully painted chapel "ie Sistine Chapel" has no benefits because someone else has painted a similar one on the other side of the world? Or you have almost finished a wall around your entire civ but it is useless because some one else has completed theirs first? That doesn't make sense. So why not have quests being one of a kind too.

With the system of rysmiel, if you are vikings and have not access to the sea, you will simply aim for another kind of unit/tech, which leads you to another kind of unit. (not UU as everybody could reach it at the expense of some tech research.)

It is exactly or partially what I think would be a good system: you have the choice to go deeper in the tech tree to reach future techs, or have the choice to develop subsidiary techs of a principal tech.

Like if you discovered Bronze Working, you have the choice to search for Iron Working, the next principal tech, or search for a tech that improves all your axemen if you have bronze metal within your civilization frontiers. Iron Working would be preferable if you have no bronze within your frontiers or near of them, when Bronze working +, Bronze Working ++ and Bronze Working +++ would add some bonus to all your axes, like 10 or 20% strengh more. (or simply an upgrade)

This way, you could choose to improve your current army by sacrifiyng some research & time, or go straight for the next military advancement, in the hope to catch a new groundbreaking tech with its new powerfull unit, like we do in Civ since it is created.

 

[Scilly_guy]

My point is that with the current system you might never be able to gain the full advantage of your unique unit because of the situation you are in, why would a land locked civ have a water based unique unit?! I understand what you are saying, don't rush to develop Sailing, Compass, Optics etc if you're land locked, head for others techs which WILL give you an advantage. But thats irrelevant as I am talking about unique units, not standard ones, with the normal tech tree.

As for your idea about having subtechs, I have thought about that too and I do like it, other ideas could be that when you discover gun powder you could research fireworks (large cities (+12) +1 ), mining techniques (mines +1 ), artillery (or something to allow cannons)

 

[Naokaukodem]

My point is that with the current system you might never be able to gain the full advantage of your unique unit because of the situation you are in, why would a land locked civ have a water based unique unit?! I understand what you are saying, don't rush to develop Sailing, Compass, Optics etc if you're land locked, head for others techs which WILL give you an advantage. But thats irrelevant as I am talking about unique units, not standard ones, with the normal tech tree.

As for your idea about having subtechs, I have thought about that too and I do like it, other ideas could be that when you discover gun powder you could research fireworks (large cities (+12) +1 ), mining techniques (mines +1 ), artillery (or something to allow cannons)

I said "with the system of Rysmiel", so considering there is no UU. Or, why not to make every unit a UU, like in Starcraft? The problem is that Starcarft has only 3 civs, when Civ have more of 20.

An interesting thing would be also to have unique units after the construction of a wonder.

 

[Scilly_guy]

MM yes, I was going to suggest that, but I couldn't think of a precedent, not that it matters.

 

[Danielos]

For ideas for multiple UUs, look at "Rise of Nations", a very underrated little gem!

 

[rysmiel]

I was just thinking that it would be interesting if civs earned unique units depending on their strategy and their situation, rather than linking them to their real world selves.

Agreed entirely.

You are happy for wonders to be one of a kind? And even if you have nearly finished it you lose it, so the nearly completed beautifully painted chapel "ie Sistine Chapel" has no benefits because someone else has painted a similar one on the other side of the world? Or you have almost finished a wall around your entire civ but it is useless because some one else has completed theirs first? That doesn't make sense. So why not have quests being one of a kind too.

No, I'm not entirely happy for Wonders to be one of a kind. I do think that Civ has developed to handle this quite a bit better since the early days, with small/national wonders and with a wider range of wonders with different effects, both of which are directions I would like to see continue. I also very much do not like seeing the production that goes into wonders go entirely to waste, and would like it if there were some better mechanism for retrieving it - if you've just put 600 shields into a wonder and someone else gets it first, flip the production over to 50-shield units and get twelve of them that turn, for example. (OK, maybe with some penalty for switching type of production, but not complete loss)