Should Civ have multiple unique units?

[Thormodr]

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!!

Except that in Civ you are generally starting from the beginning in which all things are more or less equal. In HOI you are not. You start at a set point (1936) where some nations are indeed stronger than others.

That's the whole point of Civ. You start as equals and try and rise above the others. Unless you choose a high difficulty level where you start off a little less than equal to challenge yourself or vice versa. All Civs are more or less equal.

 

[tom2050]

Not enough flavor units is why the regular epic game gets so 'played out' so quickly. There is not enough difference between each civ usually to make it worth playing them all. They usually don't feel like a completely different civilization... which they should.

In this aspect I agree with the post that said this is a big shortfall in Civ franchise.

By making each civilization have it's own unique flavor in a variety of aspects including many of the historical units, this would make it worth playing each civ, to experience the difference.

This is why epic mods are so much more popular than the regular game. Regular game seems boring after playing a well-constructed mod, which always features much more flavor.

Will they? probably not... can't get rid of a modders' job!

 

[EMT]

I'd like the idea if there where multiple leaders, so in technicality, each leader would have his own UU. Having a Panzer and Landschnet(?) for Germany while only having Bismark seems redundant, imo.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I prevoiusly thought it would be a nice idea, but these words changed my mind:

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.

Well... American military sucked before WWII. All their super units are quite modern - post WWII. But Civ is not a simulation of human history - it's a "what if" scenario. In this scenario US may have only two cities and be a vassal of Rome (like in my current game). It would be ridiculous to see this US using high-tech units.

In my opinion UUs should be mostly related to country's economy. If your ecomony is good, you can produce better units - more advanced. Only one UU should be really unique and represent real units from each civ's history. So Romans should always have legionaries as their UU (Russians - cossack or something like that, British - redcoats etc.). But beside that all civs should have a chance to "unlock" special, highly advanced units when certain ecomonic conditions are met. So in that case huge, wealthy and powerful Roman Empire would have it's own version of Tomahawk, stealth bombers etc while weak US (if in game it will be weak) should have at least standard, normal missiles or bombers, not the best in the world. In my actual Civ IV game, when I'll reach modern times and give my vassal Americans techs, it will be silly to see them having better units than I have only because in real world they have technological advantage. This is game's world and game's history of the world, not a real one.

So IMO unique, stronger units should be dependant on actual economy of one's empire. What do you think about it?

 

[The End Is Nigh]

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.

I agree completely.

 

[Ahriman]

In my opinion UUs should be mostly related to country's economy. If your ecomony is good, you can produce better units - more advanced

This is already represented; if you have a good economy, then you are further ahead in tech, and so can build higher tech level units.

No reason to try to make this "superior" versions of the same units.

 

[Cashew]

When certain units differentiate themselves too much from the "pack" it becomes problematic. Ala the praet, the skirm, and the war chariot.

But I have no problem giving a Civ another UU if their current UU is "meh" like the Holkan or the Vulture.

 

[Danielos]

I prevoiusly thought it would be a nice idea, but these words changed my mind:



Well... American military sucked before WWII. All their super units are quite modern - post WWII. But Civ is not a simulation of human history - it's a "what if" scenario. In this scenario US may have only two cities and be a vassal of Rome (like in my current game). It would be ridiculous to see this US using high-tech units.

In my opinion UUs should be mostly related to country's economy. If your ecomony is good, you can produce better units - more advanced. Only one UU should be really unique and represent real units from each civ's history. So Romans should always have legionaries as their UU (Russians - cossack or something like that, British - redcoats etc.). But beside that all civs should have a chance to "unlock" special, highly advanced units when certain ecomonic conditions are met. So in that case huge, wealthy and powerful Roman Empire would have it's own version of Tomahawk, stealth bombers etc while weak US (if in game it will be weak) should have at least standard, normal missiles or bombers, not the best in the world. In my actual Civ IV game, when I'll reach modern times and give my vassal Americans techs, it will be silly to see them having better units than I have only because in real world they have technological advantage. This is game's world and game's history of the world, not a real one.

So IMO unique, stronger units should be dependant on actual economy of one's empire. What do you think about it?

Not a bad idea. Maybe something like the Civ-score could be used as a determinant if UUs may be unlocked. For example, say that Japan has 3 modern UUs. If Japan is among the top 3 civs in score, there would be a small chance every turn that a random modern UU will be unlocked for Japan. More UUs may be unlocked later but the chance will be lower now.

 

[Danielos]

I suppose Civ-players are very conservative when it comes to Civ-differentiation. How else would you explain that a Civ-inspired game like Rise of Nations from 2003 already had multiple UUs per civilization and very different strengths and weaknesses for them all?

It is a compromise to the small Civ-multiplayer community too, I suspect...

 

[Aquila SPQR]

This is already represented; if you have a good economy, then you are further ahead in tech, and so can build higher tech level units.

Not exactly. I can be stronger and more advanced (future techs) but weak US (my vassals) will still have it's superior fighters - better than mine. It's not even close to realism.

 

[Ahriman]

This is true only once you hit the "future tech" barrier at the end of the game.

At every other stage (ie the vast majority of the game), its not true. If they have a superior knight unit, you don't really care if you can build curaissers.

How many UUs are actually in the highest tier units?

It sounds like they're expanding the top of the tech tree past the present day too (there was talk of mech units) so its highly likely that any UUs will be top-tier.

 

[Hail]

Not a bad idea. Maybe something like the Civ-score could be used as a determinant if UUs may be unlocked. For example, say that Japan has 3 modern UUs. If Japan is among the top 3 civs in score, there would be a small chance every turn that a random modern UU will be unlocked for Japan. More UUs may be unlocked later but the chance will be lower now.

any self-propelling mechanisms should be avoided. e.g. the game rewards a player for being "strong" by giving making him even stronger.

i am a member of the "civ is all about rewriting history cult".
all the civs start identical. it's the player's environment and his decisions that shape his civ.

several game mechanics that may realize that. none of the ideas are my own. e.g. i am not the original author

1) evolving traits (award points toward aggressiveness trait for building units, subtract points toward builder trait. the opposite for building buildings)
2) UU's and/or UB's can be accessed through stub techs or can be a result of the players actions
3) working sea tiles someway contributes to "naval" techs. maybe working irrigated tiles contributes to "natural sciences" or something like that...

objections to inherent UU's and UB's:

first of all it is creates inherent inequality and is map dependent. how would a player in charge of a Mongol civ feel without horses?

secondly, the availability of a UU locks a player's strategy (must use the UU ).

third objection is predictability. if i meet Gandi or Monty, i know what to expect. but is knowing a bad thing? i would say no, since any definite info in a fog-covered map strengthens player's confidence. however replayability does take a hit. so

 

[Andrew_Jay]

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.

It would be neat if they could tie UU's into what you're actually doing. Maybe the first to research a tech like "Republic" can field Legions, while the first to research "Navigation" gets the Dutch Indiaman. Though it might be best if there were some way to prevent the same Civ from taking every UU.

And to also respond to what Ahriman said - I actually wouldn't mind completely made-up Civs. I wouldn't want them to be completely uniform and feature less, however. They should keep UU's and bonuses/traits, but at least they would have the advantage of being free from all of the historical baggage.

 

[Che Guava]

It would be neat if they could tie UU's into what you're actually doing. Maybe the first to research a tech like "Republic" can field Legions, while the first to research "Navigation" gets the Dutch Indiaman. Though it might be best if there were some way to prevent the same Civ from taking every UU.

Simply limit the total UUs a civ can have (2, let's say). Those that do well in the ancient age might get some good iron units, but they will get thier due when the era of gunpowder comes along. Balance!

~che

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

It's been a while, but didn't Rise of Nations or Empire Earth have various fictitious UUs for each faction to round out their roster in eras they did not historically reach? Like special Aztec riflemen and so on? Civ could do something similar.

I also kind of liked CivRev's approach, where the UUs themselves were purely aesthetic, and the real specialization was in the faction bonus to all units of that class.

 

[UKScud]

This is why epic mods are so much more popular than the regular game. Regular game seems boring after playing a well-constructed mod, which always features much more flavor.

Exactly....I've been playing the Rise and Rule mod for Civ 3 for the past two weeks and have been having a ball...loads of units and a tech tree...Mmmmmm...lots of yummy techs

...and a hell of a lot of choice...which makes a game fun.

Then, on a whim, I decided to play a game of vanilla civ 3...and....oh dear...have you seen the tech tree for Civ 3 vanilla....there are only about 12 techs in each era!

Kind of made me remember how cool I thought Civ 4 was straight from the box

 

[Rusty Edge]

The History in the Making mod has 2 UUs and UBs for each civ. They balance out pretty well, and at the same time give each civ a different feel, it's not all about the leader traits.

In other words, it can be done.

 

[Cashew]

Not enough flavor units is why the regular epic game gets so 'played out' so quickly. There is not enough difference between each civ usually to make it worth playing them all. They usually don't feel like a completely different civilization... which they should.

In this aspect I agree with the post that said this is a big shortfall in Civ franchise.

By making each civilization have it's own unique flavor in a variety of aspects including many of the historical units, this would make it worth playing each civ, to experience the difference.

This is why epic mods are so much more popular than the regular game. Regular game seems boring after playing a well-constructed mod, which always features much more flavor.

Will they? probably not... can't get rid of a modders' job!

You're out of your tree if you think 18 completely different civs can be even remotely balanced. People will just ignore certain civs in favor for others because the differences created for "flavor" will create inequalities and "broken" civs for certain gametypes.

Think of how hard it is to balance something as simple as a fighting game with 18 characters.... let alone balance a complex strategy game with 18 civs plus expansion pack civs.

 

[Danielos]

You're out of your tree if you think 18 completely different civs can be even remotely balanced. People will just ignore certain civs in favor for others because the differences created for "flavor" will create inequalities and "broken" civs for certain gametypes.

Think of how hard it is to balance something as simple as a fighting game with 18 characters.... let alone balance a complex strategy game with 18 civs plus expansion pack civs.

But they dont have to be perfectly balanced!! If you pick Barcelona in Football Manager 2010 you know it will be easier than if you pick a lower leagues team. If you would have started a civ for real in 4000 BC, you would have been surrounded by opponents that are not perfectly balanced with you. Balance is a non-realistic, artificial "gamey" invention!

 

[Thormodr]

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.