Should Civ have multiple unique units?

[Danielos]

Correct. They don't have to be perfectly balanced. Some people like history so they will want to play certain Civs or try them all. Some people are powergamers and will only want to play the most powerful Civ. Some people will only want to play their native country. There will be Civs to suit each play style.

I think that's perfectly reasonable as long as one Civ isn't ridiculously overpowered. Even then, in single player it doesn't matter and in multi player people can ban that Civ if they choose.

As said earlier, I think the best solution for all would be to have some sort of option that you choose before starting a game, like "Balanced civs" vs "Historical power"

 

[Ahriman]

I'd have no problem with a "no UUs, UBs or leader traits option" if people wanted to use that (eg for multiplayer).

In general I am opposed to the "oh, well it could be an option" for every design feature that people do or don't like ("make no tech trading an option", "make no religion an option", "make 1 unit per tile an option") particularly when they're central design features for the whole game. But this one is big enough to justify it I think.

Some people prefer flavor, some people prefer carbon copies.

I disagree strongly though with the "people would only play the strongest faction" claim (for singleplayer).

If that were true, then everyone would only play the game on the easiest difficulty level.

 

[tom2050]

You're out of your tree if you think 18 completely different civs can be even remotely balanced.

Many mods have already done this. And they are remotely balanced.


In no way would every unit need to be massively different, or different at all. Even if the only change was a graphic, that was what I was stating. With each civ actually feeling like you are that civ in more aspects than just 1 or 2 unique units or traits, would be a huge step forward.

Balancing 18 civ's is not impossible. Some very small subtle changes to only certain units (1 per era as was mentioned was a great idea) could do the trick.

 

[Cashew]

Many mods have already done this. And they are remotely balanced.


In no way would every unit need to be massively different, or different at all. Even if the only change was a graphic, that was what I was stating. With each civ actually feeling like you are that civ in more aspects than just 1 or 2 unique units or traits, would be a huge step forward.

Balancing 18 civ's is not impossible. Some very small subtle changes to only certain units (1 per era as was mentioned was a great idea) could do the trick.

If you're idea of "feeling completely different" is simply a difference in appearance then really that's more of an issue of game aesthetics. I'm on record for not caring about game aesthetics at all.

 

[Sonereal]

This isn't Hearts of Iron.

This is Civilization V.

As such, let there only be one or two UUs for all Civs at most and let the modders do what they wion't. Personally, I would want flavor units (is that what they're called?) then a butch of UUs for a Civilization.

Because if what you're suggesting is correct, and that the game should be "harder based on what civilization you're playing", then you'll end up with the Romans nearly owning the Ancient Era and American's the late-future era because Rome (or Italy if you prefer) isn't on the same "level" as the US.

I digress. By the way, Hearts of Iron 2 was balanced because in that situation, it was played on a world map set during WW2 so of course same nations would be stronger than others. This is Civilization where every nation gets the same start on a generated map. Unless of course it's a scenario map which even in that case, it should still be balanced.

I like the idea of UUs, UBs, and unique leader traits because they make each Civilization feel different to play but going out of the way to cram one civilization to have more UUs in one era simply because it can doesn't make the game fun.