Should Civ have multiple unique units?

[Danielos]

I presume that the unique units will return for Civ 5, and that every civ will have one UU. However, a game like Rise of Nations had civs with multiple UUs.

So then you say, but what about game balance? Some civs like Inca will not have enough historical units to inspire UUs. Should modern UUs then be made up for them (like is RoN)?

For me, game balance isn´t the most important. When you play Hearts of Iron 2 for example, you know that playing Sweden would put you at a disadvantage to major powers. So why should Civ be so balanced to make all historical flavor impossible? If some civs have 6 UU and others just 2, would that make Civ a worse game? No, you only know that with some civs it might get easier/harder to win just as when playing Hearts of Iron 2.

What do you think?

 

[eireksten]

I believe they've already stated that civs won't necessarily have the same amount of UU's...

They'll balance it out through differentiating other bonuses (which will also be unique to every civ). To me balance and gameplay is a lot more important than historical accuracy, so I hope they put lots of effort into it.

 

[Magma]

It would be nice with more unique units, but I do not necessarily support them having special bonuses if it creates imbalance. I just like the cultural flavor - I do not want some countries to be massively overpowered compared to others.

 

[Camikaze]

Should Civ have multiple unique units?

Why not? I mean, so long as they balance it out, it adds nice flavour.

 

[weltraeumer]

nah. equal chance for everyone.
so rome would have 6 UU in the ancient time, means simply insanely overpowered and if america survives the time of spain, england, germany,... they would rush the planet with fancy metal stuff? nope.
But I would love to see the same unit with unique looks for each civ.

 

[Danielos]

nah. equal chance for everyone.
so rome would have 6 UU in the ancient time, means simply insanely overpowered and if america survives the time of spain, england, germany,... they would rush the planet with fancy metal stuff? nope.
But I would love to see the same unit with unique looks for each civ.

I actually like what you describe. You will probably get a game that more closely resembles actual history with a very strong Roman empire and a high tech modern USA.

 

[Danielos]

But why is game balance and equal chance so important to this game when in Hearts of Iron 2 it is obvious that some countries are inherently stronger than others? I think this is the biggest problem with multiplayer compatibility, that is makes developers to be obsessive about game balance.

 

[...behind you!]

I hope there will be more than one. I always found one unique unit/civ rather useless (the warrior and ship units or when you get access to iron too late for, say, the Romans), while others are much more useful (worker/musketeer). Having a couple of them adds a little flavour and makes it more likely you actually use them.

The bonusses shouldn't be too big though or balanced out in a good way. I would like to see special muskets vs cav vs cannons for instance. In other words: a unique unit per era for each civ.

Also, a civ renowned for their cav could see it continued in other horseunits as well, as long as it isn't overdone. On the other hand, it could force you too much into a certain war strategy.

 

[ferenginar]

Each Civ should have a unique unit for each era. Historical accuracy should dictate the primary UU, but others should be based on a cultural flavour. The primary UU would give greater benefits than the others.

 

[Danielos]

One unit for each era would narrow it down to much for some civs. For example, USA should have:

* Navy SEALS
* F15
* Stealth bomber
* Super carrier
* Abrahams tank
* Tomahawk missile

or something like that. All from modern era.

 

[bonafide11]

They've already implied that some civs will have multiple unique units, while some civs will have none. It does not make the civs with multiple unique units better than the civs without any because the civs without any UUs will have other bonuses to balance it out.

 

[tom2050]

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.

 

[weltraeumer]

They've already implied that some civs will have multiple unique units, while some civs will have none. It does not make the civs with multiple unique units better than the civs without any because the civs without any UUs will have other bonuses to balance it out.

I´m fine with that. I didn´t mean equal like making everyone identical but having equal chances to win with different strategies.

 

[weltraeumer]

...on the other hand, why not making "succesful" civs in history slightly better... sounds interesting, I´m getting to like the idea...

 

[weltraeumer]

for multiplayer reasons, maybe it´s a bit difficult... but since the ai is always somehow sluggish, they could improve the difficulty without giving the ai insane bonuses (except you look at those superior civs as insane bonuses)

 

[Danielos]

But why does everything have to be so balanced? In real life, people are not balanced, countries are not balanced and historical civs were not balanced either. Why this taboo to have some civs being underdogs and other being easier, just like it would be to choose Portugal in HoI2 or in next game play USA. They are not equal and shouldn´t be equal. And that what makes it fun and interesting!!

 

[Magma]

But why does everything have to be so balanced? In real life, people are not balanced, countries are not balanced and historical civs were not balanced either. Why this taboo to have some civs being underdogs and other being easier, just like it would be to choose Portugal in HoI2 or in next game play USA. They are not equal and shouldn´t be equal. And that what makes it fun and interesting!!

Not really. It makes the game predictable if anything.

 

[bonafide11]

I would hate it if Civ unbalanced the civs. Firaxis will leave it the way it is, as they should.

 

[Danielos]

Not really. It makes the game predictable if anything.

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!

 

[Danielos]

I would hate it if Civ unbalanced the civs. Firaxis will leave it the way it is, as they should.

Ok, what is they included an option:

* Historical strength vs Balanced

Then we could both be happy, right?