Unique Ability Elimination Thread

[bhavv]

One thing that's notable in this this thread is that no one including myself can correctly spell Persias UA . Everytime I've tried it, it was far weaker than the others. Also now you can't spawn multiple great people without increasing the count for each one, and that supposedly free great people from liberty and tower of piza also increase your GP costs, it has become even weaker than it used it to be in vanilla Civ V.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Yeah, I also wish I found this thread sooner. I would have defended wayfinding to the death, as everyone forgets the best part of this ability: OCEAN GOING TRIREMES AND GALLEAS! It is so satisfying to sail across what should be impassable, strike the other continent hard, and, should the enemy pull up with a navy of there own, slink back into the ocean and lick your wounds. I have taken a fair share of coastlines from enemies that had no way to defend themselves. This is especially true in G+K, when the first ocean craft doesn't come until the renniassance, giving you a substantial timeframe for these kinds of attacks.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Yeah, I also wish I found this thread sooner. I would have defended wayfinding to the death, as everyone forgets the best part of this ability: OCEAN GOING TRIREMES AND GALLEAS! It is so satisfying to sail across what should be impassable, strike the other continent hard, and, should the enemy pull up with a navy of there own, slink back into the ocean and lick your wounds. I have taken a fair share of coastlines from enemies that had no way to defend themselves. This is especially true in G+K, when the first ocean craft doesn't come until the renniassance, giving you a substantial timeframe for these kinds of attacks.

Wow... I can't believe I never thought of that. I was a big defender of Wayfinding in this thread. I play Polynesia all the time yet that never even occurred to me.

 

[Gucumatz]

I'm quite shocked at the placement of nearly every single UA, I must admit. Of the top 10 we got, MAYBE 3 would make it in my top 10, and at least two of the bottom 10 would make my top 10.

In fact, I'll consider it and do my top 10...

1. Phoenician Heritage (9)
2. Glory of Rome (12)
3. Patriarchate of Constantinople (32)
4. Manifest Destiny (19)
5. Hellenic League (7)
6. Sacrificial Captives (3)
7. Father Governs Children (15)
8. Population Growth (34)
9. Long Count (22)
10. Furor Teutonicus (33) (the UA is so linked to this that it can't very well not be considered, or this might lose a spot or two)

I'm really not sure what happened to some of these. PoC, in particular, got hit hard seemingly for not having a UB to help, but in a thread about UA's, it's silly to discount one due to the rest of the civ, unless a part of that civ is VERY tied to the UA (such as hills for the Inca or Ethiopia's crazy defense between Spirit of Adwa and their UU).

I wasn't surprised that Population Growth went first, but it's an insane UA, and obviously more unappreciated than I had imagined.

Furor Teutonicus and PoC going back to back, and low, drove me crazy for the rest of the thread. Germany gets a UU that allows them to upgrade all those barb spearmen they'll get into a formidable force with virtually no investment. PoC is absolutely amazing if it is a contest of civs without any UU's or UB's. Both falter if looked at from the opposite direction however (FT is bad without UU's, while PoC gets a lower pick for religion if we count other unique parts), but I was shocked to see them both go so early, and I think very highly of both.

I'm starting to think I play this game all wrong

Wow if those are your top ten I think I would be shocked what your bottom ten would be.

 

[Rooftrellen]

Wow if those are your top ten I think I would be shocked what your bottom ten would be.

Probably:

34. Wayfinding (23)
33. Viking Fury (21)
32. Spirit of Adwa (27)
31. Ingenuity (13)
30. Dutch East India Company (11)
29. Scourge of God (31)
28. Trade Caravans (26)
27. Mongol Terror (28) (hard to separate this from the UUs)
26. Art of War (8)
25. Scholars of the Jade Hall (2)

I just don't think so highly of the science UA's. I understand their value, but I'd rather get a boost almost anywhere else. Art of War is too narrow for me, and I don't normally war all that much in a general game.

The only questionable one for me in here is Mongol Terror. A mounted ranged UU that gets +1 movement due to the UA is pretty awesome, but without it, even +1 movement with mounted looks a lot weaker.

I will say a good number of my least favorite UA's actually did pretty well, but if I were guessing where they would land, I'd put them in different places, due to some of it being just how I play.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Probably:

34. Wayfinding (23)
33. Viking Fury (21)
32. Spirit of Adwa (27)
31. Ingenuity (13)
30. Dutch East India Company (11)
29. Scourge of God (31)
28. Trade Caravans (26)
27. Mongol Terror (28) (hard to separate this from the UUs)
26. Art of War (8)
25. Scholars of the Jade Hall (2)

I just don't think so highly of the science UA's. I understand their value, but I'd rather get a boost almost anywhere else. Art of War is too narrow for me, and I don't normally war all that much in a general game.

The only questionable one for me in here is Mongol Terror. A mounted ranged UU that gets +1 movement due to the UA is pretty awesome, but without it, even +1 movement with mounted looks a lot weaker.

I will say a good number of my least favorite UA's actually did pretty well, but if I were guessing where they would land, I'd put them in different places, due to some of it being just how I play.

Why did you rate Wayfinding the lowest? Take into account my previous posting about huge early naval power.

 

[Genghis.Khan]

Sacrificial Captives: 18 (-2) Good UA, but altought useful in Ancient/Classical/Medieval the rest of the game is just useless.
Ingenuity: 5
Phoenician Heritage: 20 (+1) Gotta upvote this. Great for ICS, wide and an help playing tall.
Art of War: 19
Sun Never Sets: 20
Hellenic League: 15
Great Andean Road: 25
Scholars of the Jade Hall: 21
Dutch East India Company: 12
Achaemenid Legacy: 29
The Glory of Rome: 8
Siberian Riches: 14
Nobel Prize: 23

 

[bhavv]

^^ The voting ended a long time ago.

I just don't think so highly of the science UA's. I understand their value, but I'd rather get a boost almost anywhere else. Art of War is too narrow for me, and I don't normally war all that much in a general game.

Considering the two main strategies to Civ V being tall vs wide empires, the science UAs are incredibly powerful in tall empires, but less so in wide ones (fewer larger cities = more specialists for SOTJH, and lower Great Person thresholds for Ingenuity). However I've found that Floating Gardens and Father Governs Child are equally as strong for a tall empire, where you can rely on far faster growth to offset the direct science bonuses. Both GAR and Phonecian Heritage are also just as strong for the amount of GPT they save, and combining these two with the commerce tree can easily compete with the science and food boosted civs.

On the other hand for a wide science approach, Maya has that better covered with their UB. Playing either Korea or Babylon with a wide empire approach massively weakens their UAs.

 

[woodshadows]

why limit yourself to wide or tall when you can go wide and tall

 

[Rooftrellen]

Why did you rate Wayfinding the lowest? Take into account my previous posting about huge early naval power.

Something has to be the lowest.

I'd also rather use early naval power to conquer a nearby neighbor, but then, in general, I won't need to go into the ocean to do so (though it can be helpful, certainly not normally needed).

There are just too many other things I'd rather have a UA do than be able to possibly conquer an overseas civ, thus destroying my diplomacy all game (since I've probably met about everyone by the time I pick and destroy my target halfway across the world.)

If I may ask, what would you rank as the worst UA? They all have their advantages after all.

 

[bhavv]

why limit yourself to wide or tall when you can go wide and tall

Your cities dont grow as fast or large when doing that because each one settled reduces your happiness and takes time to recover from. More cities also increases social policy and great person costs which is counter productive to running specialist economies and / or trying for culture wins.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Worst ability? Hmmm... That's a very hard one for me, as none of the abilities are really bad, and none of them hinder you on doing what you would like to do. At worst they give you no tools to help you complete your mission. But if I had to pick a worst... scourge of god. Animal husbandry: Eh. +1p from pastures: minute. City names: not really part of the UA, just something to make up for the fact that THE HUNS WHERE NEVER A CIV AND NEVER FOUNDED ANY CITIES, AND FOR SOME IDIOTIC REASON THEY WHERE STILL PUT IN CIV BEFORE A LOT OF OTHER REAL AND IMPORTANT CIVS, AND... Sorry, topic for a different time (also the VIKINGS!!!... Sorry) Double raze speed: They can't recapture a civ burning at normal speed, and the happiness hit is only temporary, so useless. Sure all this meshes perfectly with attila's UU's, but where talking ability only, so yeah.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Your cities dont grow as fast or large when doing that because each one settled reduces your happiness and takes time to recover from. More cities also increases social policy and great person costs which is counter productive to running specialist economies and / or trying for culture wins.

Wait, founding new cities increases GP times? How long has THAT been there? I never even noticed... Hooray for tall culture/ puppet empires!!!

 

[woodshadows]

Wait, founding new cities increases GP times? How long has THAT been there? I never even noticed... Hooray for tall culture/ puppet empires!!!

i don't think it does increase great person costs, it does increase social policy costs, but i think by just how much has been exaggerated, assuming you build some culture buildings (monument at minimum) it can more than make up for the increased cost of social policies. as to happiness penalties from founding new cities, i thought it was pretty much universally acknowledged that happiness is hardly a limit any longer, meaning it's completely viable to go both tall and wide. i don't know how someone might define 'tall' or 'wide', but i certainly seem to manage both, many cities, which all for the most part eventually gain very large populations, only some being limited by being built in low-food areas, etc. So.. what exactly is the limiting factor to going wide and tall? there is the whole 'city doesn't grow while building a settler' thing, but.. i generally don't build many settlers anyhow, i buy most. in any event, perhaps i might not get as tall as some, or as wide as others, but perhaps it could be considered a hybrid tall/wide, or 'balanced' empire approach, rather than the extremes.

 

[woodshadows]

worst ability surely has to be fuehrer teutonicus. so frustrating to sit around attacking a barb camp, only to end up getting no conversion. or, you get a conversion and then your big reward is a brute. it seems like since G&K you can't even farm barb camps anymore, I tried using archers to kill the barb in the camp but then the barbs just stop spawning inside the camp, but instead spawn beside it.. maybe it takes some time, but by that time an AI jumps in the camp and gets the gold for it. the 25% savings on unit maintenance is okay, but it should really be larger and the conversion should be 100%, like it is with privateers. wayfinding is actually a really good UA and it's surprising how low people rate it on these threads, it provides so much early/mid game versatility that no other civ can really match. the only knock against it is that by mid-late game when everyone has astronomy you basically are playing without a UA in many ways, which is just as annoying as when France's UA stops working, only this comes much earlier.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

No, you still get +10% CB along the coast, and since most cities will be coastal, you pretty much gain+10% combat bonus in home terrain. Add that to upgraded maori, and you get a nice little spirit of adwa type ability. Not great, but definitly better than nothing.

 

[bhavv]

i don't think it does increase great person costs, it does increase social policy costs, but i think by just how much has been exaggerated, assuming you build some culture buildings (monument at minimum) it can more than make up for the increased cost of social policies. as to happiness penalties from founding new cities, i thought it was pretty much universally acknowledged that happiness is hardly a limit any longer, meaning it's completely viable to go both tall and wide. i don't know how someone might define 'tall' or 'wide', but i certainly seem to manage both, many cities, which all for the most part eventually gain very large populations, only some being limited by being built in low-food areas, etc. So.. what exactly is the limiting factor to going wide and tall? there is the whole 'city doesn't grow while building a settler' thing, but.. i generally don't build many settlers anyhow, i buy most. in any event, perhaps i might not get as tall as some, or as wide as others, but perhaps it could be considered a hybrid tall/wide, or 'balanced' empire approach, rather than the extremes.

It does, its been like that since the game launched. Think its like +100 points for the next GP per city.

Tall empire = all your citizens in a few cities, typically done with 4 cities to make use of tradition's free buildings.
Wide empire / ICS = as many cities as you can settle.

You cannot build tall and wide because settling more cities destroys your happiness, tall empires rely on all their eggs in a few baskets, think like 4 x size 20-30 cities by 1500 AD, and running as many specialists as possible with freedom + secularism bonuses. I'll try dig up a save file of such a game to demonstrate in a bit. Sejong is indisputably strong at this, but both Siam and Aztecs can get their cities grown in far less time.

 

[Petiscator]

That's weird, I've been playing as Carthage today with what I would call a tall and wide strategy: while my capital is around 23 pop (it's by the Industrial era, BTW) and my 2nd, 3rd and 4th cities are between 15-20, I have some other cities sprawled around the map (I think the total is 9). My happiness has been positive for the whole game, I could manage that with mercantile CSs, a policy or two and some wonders from my highly productive capital. It was on emperor, and I've also been generating enough GP, the costs keep the same as far as I remember. With 7 cities, I was generating a lot of GP from my specialists without a major cost.

 

[woodshadows]

It does, its been like that since the game launched. Think its like +100 points for the next GP per city.

Tall empire = all your citizens in a few cities, typically done with 4 cities to make use of tradition's free buildings.
Wide empire / ICS = as many cities as you can settle.

You cannot build tall and wide because settling more cities destroys your happiness, tall empires rely on all their eggs in a few baskets, think like 4 x size 20-30 cities by 1500 AD, and running as many specialists as possible with freedom + secularism bonuses. I'll try dig up a save file of such a game to demonstrate in a bit. Sejong is indisputably strong at this, but both Siam and Aztecs can get their cities grown in far less time.

this sounds more like a stereotype black and white way to think, perhaps more relevant to vanilla but not so much for G&K. happiness isn't much of a limiting factor for expansion, i always end up with excess happiness even with the most aggressive city building possible (selling all lux, fast liberty tree settler, building settler, etc). i should note though that i find on most maps if you choose the standard number of players per map there just isn't a lot of room to expand beyond maybe 8 cities MAX, unless you happen to have a neighbour who doesnt like to expand. i find with the set number of players per map there is only so much room to keep expanding, so if i get 8 cities i feel lucky, generally it's probably closer to 6. so this might not count as 'ics', but im not sure how you can 'ics' more than this when the ai generally ics'es themselves and maps have only so much room per civ for expansion. in any event, at 8 cities expansion happiness has never been a limiting factor for me and my cities (assuming decent land) become all equally large.

 

[woodshadows]

That's weird, I've been playing as Carthage today with what I would call a tall and wide strategy: while my capital is around 23 pop (it's by the Industrial era, BTW) and my 2nd, 3rd and 4th cities are between 15-20, I have some other cities sprawled around the map (I think the total is 9). My happiness has been positive for the whole game, I could manage that with mercantile CSs, a policy or two and some wonders from my highly productive capital. It was on emperor, and I've also been generating enough GP, the costs keep the same as far as I remember. With 7 cities, I was generating a lot of GP from my specialists without a major cost.

i'd be curious to hear from soneone who could confirm or deny that great people costs go up with number of cities, it's weird i've never heard of this and plus it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. i can understand if your secondary cities start popping out unwanted great people, that would definitely raise the cost of the next great person, but this isn't the same as a flat increase based on number of cities in the way that social policy costs go up.