Should Civ have multiple unique units?

[Grimlin]

Aggresive Civs = multiple UUs
Peaceful Civs = passive bonuses that aid in winning without conquest

Is unbalanced but gives players the possibility to choose a Civ which fits their playing-style and tastes.

 

[Danielos]

Aggresive Civs = multiple UUs
Peaceful Civs = passive bonuses that aid in winning without conquest

Is unbalanced but gives players the possibility to choose a Civ which fits their playing-style and tastes.

Yes, I agree. It would be unfair to give military civs all the benefits. Rise of Nations had several unique traits for each civ. I´m sure more peaceful civs could have historically accurate traits what would make them more competitive against the warmongers.

 

[Ahriman]

I'd prefer multiple UUs; the lack of real differentiation between factions has always been the biggest weakness of Civ.

Multiple UUs need not necessarily imply imbalance.

I would try to spread them over eras slightly, though obviously thats more difficult for civs that only ever really appeared in particular eras (eg Aztec/Inca/Songhai) or whose latter-era counterparts were very different in culture and style (Egpyt, Greece, Rome, Mongol, Viking).

Maybe 2 per civ.
So US could have Minutemen and a modern unit.
Germany could have Landsneckt and Panzers.
Japan could have Samurai and Zeros.
etc.

 

[Che Guava]

I'd say nuts to it all: don't give ANY civs UUs, but give each city-state one apiece that you can hire out as mercenaries....

 

[Danielos]

I'd say nuts to it all: don't give ANY civs UUs, but give each city-state one apiece that you can hire out as mercenaries....

What about historical flavor? That may be important for some of us...

 

[weltraeumer]

significant diversity in military power for certain periods can only be applied when there is a real good structure of tactical gameplay implemented... I don´t want the romans to be undefeatable with an equal size or even smaller army, the chance of errors in your tactic beeing fatal is just unlikely higher...
The other question is, how long would such a military golden age last? I never play with normal game speed... Civ IV just rushes through the eras like a steamweasel, but on marathon those advantages could really become a game of survival (which is maybe not that bad)

 

[Gre_Magus]

I think balancing the civs is more important than "historical flavor." A classic game of Civilization is meant to be a sandbox - all the civs start with one settler at 4000 BC and have to build up from there. It doesn't make sense for some civs to be designed to be stronger or weaker from the get-go. If you want a more difficult game, increase the difficulty level! The differences between the countries in Hearts of Iron is due to the scenarios' distinct historical context; the same would be true for a Civilization WWII mod, like Road to War. You don't want to balance the different "players" there.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

I suppose you never played Hearts of Iron 2 then? There are many players that have succesfully created big empires with countries like Argentina, Bulgaria and Portugal. It is just harder than for example playing USA. A bigger challenge. An underdog!

Hearts of Iron is a completely different game.

 

[Ahriman]

I think "historical flavor" is more important than balancing the civs. A classic game of civs is meant to be a fun experience that gives a flavor of history. It doesn't make sense for each faction to just be the same as others with some different unit art. If you want a game with perfect balance, go play some RTS game where every side has basically identical units! The differences between factions in a game like Battle for Middle Earth are due to the particular strengths and weaknesses of a each faction, which play differently and have a great deal of individual character. You don't want to make every faction "identical" there.

 

[Danielos]

I think "historical flavor" is more important than balancing the civs. A classic game of civs is meant to be a fun experience that gives a flavor of history. It doesn't make sense for each faction to just be the same as others with some different unit art. If you want a game with perfect balance, go play some RTS game where every side has basically identical units! The differences between factions in a game like Battle for Middle Earth are due to the particular strengths and weaknesses of a each faction, which play differently and have a great deal of individual character. You don't want to make every faction "identical" there.

 

[weltraeumer]

If you want a more difficult game, increase the difficulty level!

I hope those difficulty lvls don´t look anything near the civ IV´s
It´s so lame to insanly handicap yourself just to have an interesting game. On the easy difficulties ok, the ai civs get handicaps and are generally very peaceful, but on the harder ones, the ai should just play as good as possible and maybe get more and more aggressive each lvl...

to make the civ´s different in it´s difficulty to win the game, considering historical context, is maybe a nice way of improving overall fun...

can´t believe I made a 180° in my oppinion through this thread

 

[Danielos]

can´t believe I made a 180° in my oppinion through this thread

Welcome to the power of the dark side, moahahahaha...

 

[Che Guava]

I think "historical flavor" is more important than balancing the civs. A classic game of civs is meant to be a fun experience that gives a flavor of history.......

But why base that 'historical flavour' on history that has already occurred? Isn't civ abut making your own histrical narrative? Maybe I just don't like my tundra-bound arabs attacking me with camel archers, or land-locked dutch unable to ue thier whatchamecallum ships, but I'd rather have UUs that are the consequences of specific events that actually fits the stor on the ground.

 

[Ahriman]

But why base that 'historical flavour' on history that has already occurred?

Because otherwise there *is* no historical flavor, and we may as well have the Brestoonians fighting the Haruspexes. If Rome doesn't have legions then they don't feel like Romans. If Japan doesn't have samurai then they don't feel like Japan.
Maybe the UU won't be very useful every game, but its a defining characteristic.

 

[Che Guava]

Because otherwise there *is* no historical flavor, and we may as well have the Brestoonians fighting the Haruspexes.

I, for one, would like to see that battle.

On a more serious note, I think between the leaders, graphics, language, unique buildings (?), there is plenty of flavour to distinguish japan from rome. No need for uu's as well.

 

[Steve the Noble]

Sure. In , civs had unique bonuses, and so a civilization's unique bonus could be to have multiple unique units.

 

[bonafide11]

I like the way Civ V is doing it. I think Firaxis should make each civ as unique as possible so playing as Rome feels way different than playing from the Songhai, and so on. In Civ IV, once you get the industrial era, traits generally don't feel as important, so civs starts to feel the same. Civ Revolution did a good job making civs feel different with their unique bonuses, and I imagine Civ V will do something similar. Civs don't need the same amount of UUs as long as in the end they all have the same strength of bonuses overall, so peaceful civs have bonuses that help them just as much as the militaristic civs.

 

[nmcul]

The sins that have been committed at the alter of "Balance" would turn any devil's stomach.

I would argue the line of so what in regards to UU and balance. They already unbalance the game, after all: anyone who's ever faced a horde of Roman Praetorians ("Axemen, huh? Cute." *squish*) can attest to that; and when Rifles roll around the sun never sets on those Redcoat armies, especially with Churchill at bat.

Benefits per country worked in RON, mostly. While I don't care about deviations from balance, there were points where they went too far. If I recall, either the Mayans or the Incas had some crazy city defense bonuses and wonder construction benefits in the vanilla game that allowed them to annihilate their enemies with extreme prejudice... and culture. In the expansion, America got a number of hefty bonuses that allowed them to steamroll the competition with red, white, and blue hard rockin' wonder and research benefits, and good old fashioned lead from their hordes of marines. Still, even then it was certainly possible to win against these opponents, just more difficult. It's a lot harder to accidentally make one faction a game killer in a complex game like Civ than I think people realize. In some ways, being really good at one aspect boxes you into a strategy, allowing other players to simply counter you in a more predictable manner. Break out of that trap by finding another way to run your country, and you have a more even playing field again.

That being said, let's not repeat the whole "Cossacks" thing, please, guys?

 

[UKScud]

I think it would be great, to have every civ have all Unique Units. It would make playing each civ a completely different experience. At least have historically accurate units, most can have the same stats so balance isn't thrown out the window. This would be a great thing in itself, while keeping to the core of the game.

That's far too much work to expect...even for mod-makers!

Uber-mods like Civ-3's Rise and Rule (which I mention because I just reloaded and played it) have heaps of "flavour" units, they look different but are by and large the same with regards abilities.

So....never going to happen in the product out the box, but look to the excellent modding community.

Now, that would be a nice treat from Firaxis. If they released details about the units early so that the graphics artists etc... could get started on producing new ones for the community.

 

[Ahriman]

That's far too much work to expect...even for mod-makers!

Check out the Warhammer Fantasy Civ4 mod (still in development). Most units are UUs, for 28 factions.

But yeah, never going to happen in the main game.