Special abilities

[Matjillam]

Am I the only one who think some of the special abilities we know so far is much more OP than others?

Taken from Arioch's excellent website:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Abilities
•The Glory of Rome (Rome): +25% production towards any buildings that already exist in the Capital.
•The Great Warpath (Iroquois): Units spend only 1 Movement Point entering any tile with a Forest.
•Manifest Destiny (America): All land military units have +1 sight range, 25% discount when purchasing tiles.
•Trade Caravans (Arabia): +1 gold from each Trade Route, and Oil resources provide double quantity.
•Sacrificial Captives (Aztecs): gains Culture for the empire from each enemy unit killed.
•Art of War (China): Effectiveness and spawn rate of Great Generals increased
•Monument Builders (Egypt): +20% production towards Wonder construction.
•Sun Never Sets (England): +2 movement for all naval units.
•Ancien Regime (France): +1 culture per turn from Cities before discovering Steam Power.
•Furor Teutonicus (Germany): Upon defeating a Barbarian unit inside an encampment, there is a 50% chance you earn 25 gold and they join your side.
•Hellenic League (Greece): City-State influence degrades at half rate and recovers and twice normal rate.
•Population Growth (India): Unhappiness from number of cities doubled, Unhappiness from number of Citizens halved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some of them just dont sound very good. Like the Iroquois? Better movement in forests? First of all you need to be in a war, second of all you need a front with forests in it to use it.

And Germany? Guess 'joining your side' means getting a city on the spot? Either way it doesn't sound very good to me, especially when you consider that you problably aren't gonna defeat many barbs after medieval era or something like that.

And Chinas art of war. Again, you need to be at war to use the ability at all. And England? You need ocean to use it...

Others sound extremely good, like Rome, or Arabia (german article mentioning oil wars later on in game. Having double oil sounds pretty sweet). France and Egypt also sound quite usable.


To me it looks like there is some abilities that will be very good throughout the game and others will be very situational. And my experience is indeed that abilities that works in both peace or war, land or ocean are the most usefull.


Am I the only one seing some serious imbalance here?

 

[moysturfurmer]

They call for different playstyles. It's no different than something like the aggressive trait in IV. It's a Moderator Action: *snip* trait unless you plan on warring.

 

[Windsor]

Some abilities certainly does look stronger than others, but I don't think they need to be equally good either.

 

[Matjillam]

Some abilities certainly does look stronger than others, but I don't think they need to be equally good either.

Why not? Even though it would of course be impossible to make them totally balanced, shouldn't they be as balanced as possible?

To me this doesn't sound very balanced

Rome ability will in the end give you +25 % produktion on buildings in all cities. Compared to the others it sounds much much better

 

[Calouste]

The special abilities have to be seen in combination with other features in the game, not in isolation. For example for Germany, if you unlock the 'Honor' Social Policy tree, you get a 25% combat bonus against Barbarians and will be notified when any new Barbarian camps show up. That plays very well with their ability. In general from what we have seen there is a lot more land unclaimed until later in the game, and thus more Barbarians.

The Iroquois ability seems to apply to all units, so you will also have some kind of semi-fast workers. And they have an early UU, that we don't know yet what its abilities are, but it might make them a fearsome early rush Civ.

England is all naval units, most likely including auto-transports. That would allow for sneaky manoeuvers to land a knight unit behind the enemy lines if a battle takes place close to the coast, in general allows you units to be transported far quicker over water than over land, fast waterbased exploration, quick settling of islands.

 

[Matjillam]

The special abilities have to be seen in combination with other features in the game, not in isolation. For example for Germany, if you unlock the 'Honor' Social Policy tree, you get a 25% combat bonus against Barbarians and will be notified when any new Barbarian camps show up. That plays very well with their ability. In general from what we have seen there is a lot more land unclaimed until later in the game, and thus more Barbarians.

The Iroquois ability seems to apply to all units, so you will also have some kind of semi-fast workers. And they have an early UU, that we don't know yet what its abilities are, but it might make them a fearsome early rush Civ.

England is all naval units, most likely including auto-transports. That would allow for sneaky manoeuvers to land a knight unit behind the enemy lines if a battle takes place close to the coast, in general allows you units to be transported far quicker over water than over land, fast waterbased exploration, quick settling of islands.

Indeed you are correct about the isolation. Many other factors do play a role. UB and UU of course.

Hadn't thought about Germany and honor tree, sounds like a pretty good combo.

I just hope they make the abilities balanced for the AI as well. I think we can all relate to Tokugawa in Civ4. He never really became a threat to anyone because he was so behind in tech, compared to a tech whore like Mansa who allways was a big threat late game because of insane teching.

It would be so dissapointing if the AI didn't know at all how to cope with the given ability

 

[duckofspades]

To me it looks like there is some abilities that will be very good throughout the game and others will be very situational. And my experience is indeed that abilities that works in both peace or war, land or ocean are the most usefull.


Am I the only one seing some serious imbalance here?

I don't really see a big problem here. If every specail ability was of exact equall value then the civs wouldn't feel as unique. Yes the Irquios get screwed on the long term effects of thier ability. Germans lose out when barbs fade to background. However panzer is a good modern unit, even though it will get killed off by modern armor.
The point being when you add up unique abilites, units and buildings. Every civ gains a uniqe feel. Civs will naturally be stronger or weaker based on the time line. However it's the job of a powerfull leader to make up for the weaker side and gain from the stronger.

Also these varibles will make games flow even more unique then before, Based on terrain and civs starting next to. Giving a great game even more replay value.

 

[Windsor]

Why not? Even though it would of course be impossible to make them totally balanced, shouldn't they be as balanced as possible?

To me this doesn't sound very balanced

No, I don't thing the abilities needs to be as balanced as possible. They need to be fun and they shouldn't break the game.

In a competitive multiplayer-game like Counter-Strike it's crucial that weapons are balanced against their counterpart.

The Civilization series on the other hand doesn't need this sort of balancing. Why so obsessed with everything needing to be balanced?

 

[Silvestris]

The germans lose out when barbs fade to background.

But the Units they gained are also usefull after the barbs maybe faded to the background, with limited ressources, units automatically upgraded etc. It's quite powerfull I think.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

What bugs me is that some special abilities seem so isignificant and in fact have a smaller impact than social policies.
Egypt get's 20% to wonder construction but aristocracy gives +33%.
Sure, Egypt might still get a 53% but if they go another social policy route there are civs who'll be better at building wonders than the one that has wonder building as the thing that sets them apart from others. Of course Egypt would still have an edge building the earliest wonders before anybody has unlocked aristocracy, but I would have prefered the civs to be more unique.

 

[morss_4]

No, I don't thing the abilities needs to be as balanced as possible. They need to be fun and they shouldn't break the game.

In a competitive multiplayer-game like Counter-Strike it's crucial that weapons are balanced against their counterpart.

The Civilization series on the other hand doesn't need this sort of balancing. Why so obsessed with everything needing to be balanced?

...Because Civ IS a competitive multiplayer game?

At least, it was last time I checked.

 

[Krill]

England and Iroquois are broken...

 

[Ahriman]

1. I would expect balancing to happen at the faction level, not the ability level. More powerful special ability but weaker UUs, for example.

2. Iroquois ability could be quite powerful. And not just useful in wartime if it applies to workers.

3. Given how expensive units are, getting a few early barbarian units for free (with some gold!) could make Germany into a powerful early game rusher.

4. China ability sounds very useful. "You need to be at war to use it" is a bizarre complaint, since military conquest is one of the most important aspects of the game, and in reality all of the not-war powers (tech, economy, etc) are really boosted at improving your military power.

5. England ability needs water... so what? Its clear that navies are going to be far more powerful than ever before, particularly with naval bombardment of land tiles.

6. The arab ability sounds awesome, I admit.

 

[Schuesseled]

i think a lot of people are underestimating the usefulness of the iroqouis ability, yes your enmy might not have forests to be taken advantage of you, but forests are in your territory to exploit for your defence!

Iroqouis could fly in and out of a belt of forests on thier borders ripping anyone fooliosh enough to enter.

 

[Calouste]

Indeed you are correct about the isolation. Many other factors do play a role. UB and UU of course.

Hadn't thought about Germany and honor tree, sounds like a pretty good combo.

I just hope they make the abilities balanced for the AI as well. I think we can all relate to Tokugawa in Civ4. He never really became a threat to anyone because he was so behind in tech, compared to a tech whore like Mansa who allways was a big threat late game because of insane teching.

It would be so dissapointing if the AI didn't know at all how to cope with the given ability

The Toku/Mansa issue in Civ4 doesn't have as much to do with their abilities as with the way their respective AI was programmed to either deny or accept open borders and tech trades. In Civ5 things seem to be the other way around. The flavor of a civ is more characterized by its ability (differences in trait combos in Civ4 are sometimes fairly marginal) and, although the AI still has some personality, it is more flexible in adapting its behavior to the best way to win.

 

[AriochIV]

3. Given how expensive units are, getting a few early barbarian units for free (with some gold!) could make Germany into a powerful early game rusher.

Although it's true the wording is ambiguous, I believe the intent is that it's the encampment that joins you, not the unit you destroyed. Giving you a free city.

 

[Schuesseled]

Guess we won't know for sure for the moment though. (personally i'd prefer the unit, the mongol ability of civ rev was kinda lame, I highly doubt barbs will always spawn on optimal settling locations.)

 

[Babri]

Indian special ability looks strange. It might make problems for a very large Indian empire & over expansion early on could be a big problem.

 

[Prof_longhair]

I was actually thinking England's ability may be quite powerful. With the 1 unit per tile rule it may be very hard to protect convoys. If Civ 5 keeps some of the civ iv promotions and bonuses (e.g. circumnavigation) and England gets them it may be one of the few powers that can successfully launch sea based invasions. Guess we'll have to wait and see...

 

[AlpsStranger]

No, I don't thing the abilities needs to be as balanced as possible. They need to be fun and they shouldn't break the game.

In a competitive multiplayer-game like Counter-Strike it's crucial that weapons are balanced against their counterpart.

The Civilization series on the other hand doesn't need this sort of balancing. Why so obsessed with everything needing to be balanced?

Imbalance *never* improves a game. Single player or otherwise. All imbalance does is force you to choose between the faction/class/race/etc that you *want* to play versus the one you *should*. Game developers in all genres should balance as applicable. (Not saying that Character A needs to be as powerful as Character B in a strictly linear RPG, but perhaps fighting game characters as an example.)

Making the national powers imbalanced would do nothing other than allow the Devs to phone in a crucial part of their jobs. This would be true even if Civ5 had *no* multiplayer whatsoever.

EDIT: That said, we do not have enough information to truly evaluate these powers. Who, having not played Civ4, would have thought that the Incan Terrace was so awesome?