Speculating Leader's Unique Abilities

[Infantry#14]

In Civ 5, the leaders no longer have "traits", but unique abilities UA. I suspect that they are similar to the civilization unique abilities in Civ4 BTS Rhyes and Fall. For examples in that mod, India's UA is no anarchy (spiritual), Egypt's UA is Hereditary Rule and Slavery at Start, Rome's UA is the "Roman Roads" or 4X movement along roads.

I think there is a good chance that some civilizations in civ 5 will adopt the same unique abilities from Rhyes and Fall. Otherwise, it would difficult to come up with 18 new abilities and then more in expansion packs.

 

[climat]

IIRC, CivRev already had this. So I would expect things like that would be included.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It seems that in civRev all leaders gained a new and different bonus at the start of every era. Ancient America gained 2% interest on gold for example - infocenter...

Not to derail this topic, but how did this work out in civRev? Was it a good feature that contributed to the gameplay? Were the civs balanced?

 

[GigaNerd]

Not to derail this topic, but how did this work out in civRev? Was it a good feature that contributed to the gameplay? Were the civs balanced?

I have won with each leader at least once in CivRev, so I believe I am qualified to answer this question. The truth is, the bonuses weren't that significant.

+2% gold? I never even noticed it.
Free writing tech in the medieval era? Too bad, I already got it.
Increased movement for swordsmen? Cannons come shortly after!



These bonuses don't really do much in the game. In fact, the only bonus I consider useful is getting a free Great Person.

I'm glad that Civ V is doing a "Rhye's & Fall" style bonus sytem. Trust me when I say that it'll work out for the better.

 

[Ataxerxes]

The RFC bonus system is better. I'm glad they're using that. Some of the unique abilities in Rhye's were very significant. For example, Germany gets free unit upgrades at Industrialism, that means warriors become infantry at no cost. The unique abilities really did differentiate what the best strategy was with a particular leader.

 

[bonafide11]

It seems that in civRev all leaders gained a new and different bonus at the start of every era. Ancient America gained 2% interest on gold for example - infocenter...

Not to derail this topic, but how did this work out in civRev? Was it a good feature that contributed to the gameplay? Were the civs balanced?

I have won with each leader at least once in CivRev, so I believe I am qualified to answer this question. The truth is, the bonuses weren't that significant.

+2% gold? I never even noticed it.
Free writing tech in the medieval era? Too bad, I already got it.
Increased movement for swordsmen? Cannons come shortly after!



These bonuses don't really do much in the game. In fact, the only bonus I consider useful is getting a free Great Person.

I'm glad that Civ V is doing a "Rhye's & Fall" style bonus sytem. Trust me when I say that it'll work out for the better.

Well I have to disagree with GigaNerd. Some Civ Rev bonuses were insignificant, but some were very powerful. Shaka and Isabella received 50% gold bonuses! That was huge, especially for economic victory. Shaka also received 50% growth in cities in an era, which was also powerful. Saladin starts with religion, which gives him +1 for attack early on in the game. These are just a few instances, I could go on. So some were insignificant, but some were very powerful.

Anyway, I am really glad Civ V decided to go the unique bonus route rather than keeping traits. Traits make the leaders all feel somewhat similar and generic, and it limits the creative bonuses that Civ can apply to the leaders. It makes much more sense to give a leader, for instance, faster roads than +2 to culture, which they share with several other leaders as well.

 

[grant2004]

I fear it will be harder to balance these bonuses than it was with a smaller number of interchangable leader traits. If what you're saying about CivRev is right, they didn't do a great job with it.

That said the RFC traits were a ton of fun, and balance isn't as big of a deal in single player, as any unbalance simply adds to the difficulty. Multiplayer is another story though.

 

[seasnake]

Rise of Nations did this really well, each civ felt different but you could win with all, balanced and different strengths and weaknesses. Like Egypt had the power of the Nile, which helped them build quicker wonders and farm better, and Russia had the Power of the Motherland, which increased invader attrition and helped your units. Both civs were fun to play, but their strengths sort of guided your gameplay.

 

[Herrhals]

Rise of Nations did this really well, each civ felt different but you could win with all, balanced and different strengths and weaknesses. Like Egypt had the power of the Nile, which helped them build quicker wonders and farm better, and Russia had the Power of the Motherland, which increased invader attrition and helped your units. Both civs were fun to play, but their strengths sort of guided your gameplay.

You are sooo right! RON=bestRTS, ciV maybe =bestTBS, if they take RON civ traits and do something similar. Each nation had 3-4 attributes totally unique to them and allowed each nation to be totally different.

French and Bantu FTW!!!! (off-topic)

 

[Thormodr]

You are sooo right! RON=bestRTS, ciV maybe =bestTBS, if they take RON civ traits and do something similar. Each nation had 3-4 attributes totally unique to them and allowed each nation to be totally different.

French and Bantu FTW!!!! (off-topic)

Indeed. RON was really, really fun. I may have to play a few games again for old times sake and to tide me over.

I especially liked the Nubians.