Special abilities

[spyroware]

Although many abilities in name seem better than others, Civs in a game grow asymmetrically, one at the expense of another. So we cant compare them as if within a game the balance of power (and as such a 100% utilisation of the UA) is maintained forever. In reality it seems the Civs are rather balanced in themselves (UA-UU-UB).*

For example the Greeks have city-state boni something that can lead to early wars/difficult missions, hence the 2 early UU. After the UU become obsolete you should already be reaping the benefits of the city-states alliances to give you the edge.

Arabia can turtle in early game with their increased trade route yields and when oil becomes available and they can become aggressive. In the meanwhile they have their early to mid game UU for confrontations.

Exceptions, imo, are 1. Rome which from at least early mid-game it becomes a permanent 25% production bonus. It is balanced out in itself with 2 early game UU, but it just seems too powerful compared to other Civs. 2. England. I really love the ability and the flavour but right now it feels that their naval dominance can be totally uncontested, and I really don't want to feel that if the English are in a game I have no real chance at sea expansion.

Also since I want wonders for myself I just don't like the Egyptian UA

*Hopefully for the gameplay, I'd like to be able to play with randomised UA's after I've mastered all the playstyles.

 

[Calouste]

1. Rome: You still need to build the building in Rome, even if you don't have much use of it there. Barracks come to mind, with fewer units you might want to assign only one or two cities to military production, and probably not your capital. If you build a building in your capital that you don't really need, you need to build another 4 of it just to break even on the hammer cost, not counting building maintenance. A Harbor also doesn't do much for the capital (if you can build it at all, you won't be able to if it is not coastal). It also means that it is harder for Rome to build early Wonders and still get all the benefits from its ability, as the capital, usually the most hammer heavy city early on, has to complete all the buildings before the other cities.

2. England: There are maritime city states that I doubt will show up anywhere except on the coast. Using the same algorithm they use to locate maritime city states, they can also always give England a starting position at the coast (except of course on maps without any coast at all).

 

[Tregon]

1. Rome: You still need to build the building in Rome, even if you don't have much use of it there. Barracks come to mind, with fewer units you might want to assign only one or two cities to military production, and probably not your capital.

You should take into account, that game appears to be bit slower. You will want your capitol to be able to take some of the heat of early warfare as well. I know I will.

You can't just ignore need for military even early on with barbarians.

If you build a building in your capital that you don't really need, you need to build another 4 of it just to break even on the hammer cost, not counting building maintenance. A Harbor also doesn't do much for the capital (if you can build it at all, you won't be able to if it is not coastal). It also means that it is harder for Rome to build early Wonders and still get all the benefits from its ability, as the capital, usually the most hammer heavy city early on, has to complete all the buildings before the other cities.

Think of it more like this, instead of trying to cash in with every building, you can take advantage of this for buildings you are definitely going to build in practically all cities.

Granary comes to mind. It is something you would really want in most if not all cities.
Or, with global happiness, all those cool happiness buildings... More the merrier, bigger you can get.

2. England: There are maritime city states that I doubt will show up anywhere except on the coast. Using the same algorithm they use to locate maritime city states, they can also always give England a starting position at the coast (except of course on maps without any coast at all).

In a way, I do not like that either (but then again I might be difficult to please). Having guarantees on your starting location just... Sucks.

It's same as declaring that Arabia will always spawn near oil resource so it can take advantage of it's UA.

 

[CannonballJack]

France dominated the cultural landscape of the 19th century, so by the late 19th to early 20th century, they also dominated the Belle Epoque period. And their dominance in the 19th century goes all the way back to the 30 years war and the Peace of Westphalia.

Hmmm. So would you say that the early 20th century was specifically a cultural high point for France? Since you're referring to 17th-century wars, I suspect that's not the point you're making.

Actually, the real question: Was there a noteworthy decline in French cultural prominence after the industrial revolution? I would think that, with Europe changing - Britain industrializing, Germany organizing, Russia modernizing - France went from cultural capitol to one nation among many. Maybe Firaxis is just taking the whole "everything was better before the Revolution" concept of the Ancien Regime literally, though (which would probably be a mistake).

Not necessarily. I'm not sure we know the actual amount of unhappy generated per city and per pop, nor if they ramp up any further than a base number. This is very important information.

You have a very good point. So much depends on the numbers! We also don't know how the various buildings, Wonders, and social policies affect unhappiness. If even one of them reduces per-city unhappiness by a percentage, then India is looking a lot better.

Exceptions, imo, are 1. Rome which from at least early mid-game it becomes a permanent 25% production bonus. It is balanced out in itself with 2 early game UU, but it just seems too powerful compared to other Civs. 2. England. I really love the ability and the flavour but right now it feels that their naval dominance can be totally uncontested, and I really don't want to feel that if the English are in a game I have no real chance at sea expansion.

Hopeful thoughts about the English:

1) Their ships are faster, but not stronger.
2) A flat movement increase will matter less as the base movement rate of ships increases.
3) Eventually, the strength of navies will be determined by coal and oil reserves.
4) We still don't know what the Ottoman special ability does.

Nothing hopeful to say about Rome. They'll own.

 

[Calouste]

You should take into account, that game appears to be bit slower. You will want your capitol to be able to take some of the heat of early warfare as well. I know I will.

You can't just ignore need for military even early on with barbarians.

Think of it more like this, instead of trying to cash in with every building, you can take advantage of this for buildings you are definitely going to build in practically all cities.

Sure, but if you can't use it for every building, it weakens the overall effect of the ability. People think Rome is overpowered because they have the impression that they get 25% off almost every building. We have just agreed that that almost certainly isn't the case, and that the Roman special ability is therefore less impressive than it looks. There are also buildings that require one of a limited number of resources to be build, further limiting the effect.

 

[brianshapiro]

Hmmm. So would you say that the early 20th century was specifically a cultural high point for France? Since you're referring to 17th-century wars, I suspect that's not the point you're making.

France dominated the art world throughout the 19th century, the only thing different about the late 19th / early 20th century is that's when avant-garde movements arose. But think of artists like Delacroix and Ingres.

In fact, the emergence of modern art is when France started losing influence culturally, because traditional art depended on state sponsored academies. If you think about it, few of the major figures in early 20th century art, music, or literature are French. Picasso is Spanish, Stravisnky is Russian, Joyce is English., etc. Matisse has a place in there somewhere.

Impressionism started way back in the 1860s.

And the rise of French influence in Europe did begin back in the 17th century.

 

[Tregon]

Sure, but if you can't use it for every building, it weakens the overall effect of the ability. People think Rome is overpowered because they have the impression that they get 25% off almost every building. We have just agreed that that almost certainly isn't the case, and that the Roman special ability is therefore less impressive than it looks. There are also buildings that require one of a limited number of resources to be build, further limiting the effect.

I cannot say for certain which buildings are there and aren't, but Roman power is extremely powerful.

Capitol in most cases will have just about every building imaginable. Because honestly, there are very few buildings which do not provide some benefit.

Which buildings you would see as being harmful to Rome? Let us assume buildings are more or less same as in Civ4.

Building wonders is not really that much of an issue anyway. New cities will take some time to build up things you set up in Rome in the start anyway. Rome might very well succeed in building some early wonder while construction of few base buildings and some defences kicks in with rest of cities.

Not to mention that trying to rush to early wonders if Egypt is in the game might be bad idea. They have clear advantage in that field.

 

[brianshapiro]

Btw, roughly the same period that we refer to as the Belle Époque, is what in Austria is referred to the Ringstraße Era (1860-1910), named after the construction of the Ringstraße around the central district of Vienna.

It was much more of a high point for Austria-Hungary than it was for France, not because France didn't play an important role in Europe at the time, but because it had previously enjoyed influence. Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, was a rising star, and artists and intellectuals there were often hailed as rivals to those in France.

 

[ShaqFu]

Since trade routes are domestic only, it looks like Rashid might be another expansionist civ. The +1 gold/route will go a long way to keeping your economy afloat with a huge empire, and the encouragement to link everything up will help the logistical aspect of maintenance. I'm a bit let down that you can't lay infrastructure, get on everyone's good side, and build a global trading empire, but c'est la vie, and there's always mods.

Capitol in most cases will have just about every building imaginable. Because honestly, there are very few buildings which do not provide some benefit.

Which buildings you would see as being harmful to Rome?

Buildings now have an upkeep cost, so if you overdo it with buildings, your economy might not be able to support it - those unnecessary Barracks will harm you in the long run. Rome's ability is good, but it's not the kind of thing you can base your entire game around; it boost a lot of other game styles (culture, mainly, but also economic/military, and it's not bad for expansionist), but it's not a huge neon sign saying "PLAY ME AS A WARMONGER/CULTURALIST/MERCHANT-PRINCE."

 

[CultureManiac]

Does anyone else really, really want to abuse that Aztec power?

 

[Tregon]

Buildings now have an upkeep cost, so if you overdo it with buildings, your economy might not be able to support it - those unnecessary Barracks will harm you in the long run. Rome's ability is good, but it's not the kind of thing you can base your entire game around; it boost a lot of other game styles (culture, mainly, but also economic/military, and it's not bad for expansionist), but it's not a huge neon sign saying "PLAY ME AS A WARMONGER/CULTURALIST/MERCHANT-PRINCE."

I recall that buildings had upkeep cost in the past too.
As said, your capitol has to take care of defence in the early era. You will need that barrack.

And if your economy is brought to ruin because you have barracks in your capitol, you are doing something really, really wrong.

Of course there might be some exception buildings which do not make sense to build in capitol, but overall you will want every beneficial building in your capitol.
You will want happiness buildings, you will want economy buildings, you will want production buildings...
Why? Because your capitol should be located in a way which suites it to do all these things.

Capitol is jack of all trades, other cities can specialize and take advantage from capitols buildings.

You have to look at Roman ability through whole game arch. It's importance grows as your empire grows. When your empire hits 10-20 cities you have saved lots of hammers through this ability.

 

[SalmonSoil]

I recall that buildings had upkeep cost in the past too.
As said, your capitol has to take care of defence in the early era. You will need that barrack.

If Rome has to take care of early defence whilst you get other military cities up it's going to nerf it's building production a bit isn't it?

Everyone seems to forget that the UP will be balanced with UB and UU, some civs will have better UP's, others will have better UU's. Also the UPs seem to be used to balance civs with heavy dominance in some eras but nothing for others. Rome and Greece both have early UUs but UPs that get better with time. Germany has a UP that seems better early but has UUs for medieval and modern periods. Americas UP provides it with early expansion and scouting bonuses whilst it's UU's are both middle-late game.

 

[Tregon]

If Rome has to take care of early defence whilst you get other military cities up it's going to nerf it's building production a bit isn't it?

Who else you suggest deals with possible barbarians? Blind luck?

Specially when we take into account that Civ5 appears to go for slower expansion, meaning you have to depend on your capitol more.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Don't beat me up, I'll try to sum them up again

America. Sight distance benefits exploration and some tactics, tile purchasing slightly adds to city development. Handy, but not too specific. Balanced over time with early exploration bonus, middle and late UU bonuses.

Arabia. Simply expansive with their +1 gold per connected city and oil bonuses. Could become oil-traders of the later epoch, receiving a lot of money.

Aztecs. Interesting what they have little for war, but a lot from war. Will be early barbarian-hunters and late warmongers.

China. Great general could be used for golden ages, which is good. But without exact mechanics, difficult to say anything about their tactics.

Egypt. Could pick at least one early-game wonder of their choice and beat competitors for sure. So may use some wonder-based strategy, which is cool.

England. Sea-based bonus may suck on some maps and totally rule on others. Anyway bonus and UU are all military, so wars and treats will be their core.

France. Early culture bonus with middle and late UU. Looks like France need to change strategy in the middle, developing Civics in the first half and using them for war and treats in the second. Could be interesting.

Germany. Early (mostly) unit number bonus, plus middle and late UU. Additional 25 gold should be enough to maintain additional barbarian units, so this looks balanced. Just all-time warriors.

Greece. Early military (2 UU) and establishing connections, using diplomatic bonuses in middle and late game. Good approach for diplomatic civilization.

India. Huge happiness bonuses will lead to many golden ages, which, together with large cities will become the core of Indian strategy, using GA for building armies and wonders.

Iroquois. Difficult to say without any info on their UU and UB, but looks like they'll try to preserve as many forests as possible while neighbors may try to chop. Could be funny.

Japan (suggestion). Looks like pure militaristic civilization. Expect Bushido to provide mostly early bonus for time balance.

Ottomans (suggestion). Probably have blockading bonus leading to another militarist civilization. Both UU look middle-game, which is strange. I'm ready for some surprises here.

Persia (suggestion). Looks like they have some infrastructure bonuses (special and UB) for middle and late game, together with early (?) UU for building empire. No details, so may be surprises.

Rome. Totally builders - legion special adds to building as well, so the only combat bonus is ballista, which is very special.

Russia (suggestion). Due to switching UB/Ability we could suggest some Trading post bonus, but I don't see any strategy contribution and historical references here. More realistically it's slight (50%) bonus to all resources. Since resources provide 2 or 4, that's possible, giving 3 and 6 accordingly. This way Russia will become another (together with Arabia) expansive civilization, trying to conquer as much as possible for further trading.

Siam (suggestion). Special ability may be additional control over puppet-states, leading to weird war strategies. Not sure how it combines with UU and UB.

Songhai (suggestion). No suggestions here really

 

[TM Moot]

Do we know if chopping forests for a one off hammer boost is in CivV?

If not, then the Iroquois Great Warpath Special Ability might be better then first thought (longer lasting).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Do we know if chopping forests for a one off hammer boost is in CivV?

No confirmations yet. Need to wait for Greg's community feature about terrain features. I'd say - high chances what it's gone now.

And yes, Iroquois ability is not weak, and it's interesting since it forces them to preserve more forests than other civs do.

Edit: The reason why I think the tree choping is gone is an ability to buy units and buildings with gold regardless of civics now. No need in choping rush, and as I see, Civ5 developers don't preserve things, which aren't needed.

Secondary reason is what choping rush would make Egyptians less interesting, since they'll be unable to rely on their guaranteed early wonder.

 

[Schuesseled]

tree chopping is in the game, for example you can clearly see workers chopping away at forests in the german preview. (we do not know if provides hammers as in previous civs, and yes theres is less need for a chopping rush given gold rush from the beginning.)

 

[stealth_nsk]

tree chopping is in the game, for example you can clearly see workers chopping away at forests in the german preview. (we do not know if provides hammers as in previous civs, and yes theres is less need for a chopping rush given gold rush from the beginning.)

Surely tree choping is in game, but hammers from chopping were only given in Civ4, since other speed-ups were civic-specific. I don't think they'll return.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Given the fact a worker cost 70p and you start with 2-3 p plus 1 when you grow to size 2 (app. after 13 turns), it can only be finished in the range of 18 to 28 turns so you'll surely want to buy rush or chop rush.

 

[moysturfurmer]

For the uninitiated:

• River Warlord (Songhai): Receive triple Gold from Barbarian encampments and pillaging Cities, Embarked units can defend themselves.
• Bushido (Japan): Units fight as though they were at full strength even when damaged.
• Siberian Riches (Russia): Strategic Resources provide +1 Production, and Horse, Iron and Uranium Resources provide double quantity.
• Achaemenid Legacy (Persia): Golden Ages last 50% longer. During a Golden Age, units receive +1 Movement and a +10% Combat Strength bonus.

Source: http://img195.imageshack.us/i/19468941.jpg/

Persia and Russia are looking good.