Unique Units in Civ4?
- Thread starter Desertsnow
- Start date
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I like the "flavour" units vs. the GA - UU thing. Non-GA UU's---meaning a better unit here or their per-Civ is interesting, but I'd rather have it as optional techs in the tech tree.
GA's if they're still around in CIV4, should not be triggered by unit combat, but only by Wonders, and perhaps something else (like mucho "We love the president"'s). For militaristic GA's, there should be special UU-producting wonders, instead, with the wonder having a chance to trigger the GA (Enkidu Warriors triggering an Industrial-age GA is kind of ridiculous, but it can happen in CIV3).
I do like the 'realism' of a UU of a non-militaristic Civ can cause a brief GA, like an uprising, but I don't like the 20 year GA being linked to UU's as they are now.
GA's if they're still around in CIV4, should not be triggered by unit combat, but only by Wonders, and perhaps something else (like mucho "We love the president"'s). For militaristic GA's, there should be special UU-producting wonders, instead, with the wonder having a chance to trigger the GA (Enkidu Warriors triggering an Industrial-age GA is kind of ridiculous, but it can happen in CIV3).
I do like the 'realism' of a UU of a non-militaristic Civ can cause a brief GA, like an uprising, but I don't like the 20 year GA being linked to UU's as they are now.
The americans shouldnt have an ancient UU. they have an industrail AND a modern one.
The Aztecs should have an acient UU and no other UU.
Of course they are balanced so that the chinees 4 UUs arent that powerful. because some civs would only have 1 UU
The Aztecs should have an acient UU and no other UU.
Of course they are balanced so that the chinees 4 UUs arent that powerful. because some civs would only have 1 UU
Probably better to do away with UU's completely. I still think the separate unit graphics for cultures is a good idea, although not for each civ - that would be going too far, I think.
Either that, or put in a unit workshop a la SMAC. That would provide differing graphics depending on what you equipped a unit with, and would provide a large variety of armies. It goes away from the CIV tradition of having a small number of units, since you could customize a million in a game, but would make for some VERY interesting strategies. Combine this with a tech tree that has a lot more options (and no more eras) and warfare would be very interesting indeed.
Either that, or put in a unit workshop a la SMAC. That would provide differing graphics depending on what you equipped a unit with, and would provide a large variety of armies. It goes away from the CIV tradition of having a small number of units, since you could customize a million in a game, but would make for some VERY interesting strategies. Combine this with a tech tree that has a lot more options (and no more eras) and warfare would be very interesting indeed.
brinko
witness of the past
i disagree, having uu's are awesome and i look forward to having an advantage to the battle field
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Here is an idea I propogate alot but no one ever notices. Maybe I should quit 
The graphics, history, names, and leaderheads(plz replace) really have no correlation to the UUs and traits of a civ besides the fact developers told us they did. Really all a rider is is a 4/3/3 unit that requires horses and iron and replaces the Knight for Civ X, which is China. Traits are the same way.
Now lets say when you start a new game you choose two things: your Civilization and your 'civilization template'. The Civilization is the Chinese, French, American, etc. The template is a set of traits and the UU(s) plus anything else that affects gameplay.
Why go to this trouble?
Right now the major problem with adding new civs is the need to balance traits and UUs with the existing civs. What if you had the same thirty-six templates that have already been playtested and are modified for best results? Then it does not matter whether you play as the Babylonians, Canadians, or Minoans because you can choose to play whatever template. Now you can play as the Egyptians with a 6/4/3 Cavalry UU and appropriate traits, or Americans with
The graphics, history, names, and leaderheads(plz replace) really have no correlation to the UUs and traits of a civ besides the fact developers told us they did. Really all a rider is is a 4/3/3 unit that requires horses and iron and replaces the Knight for Civ X, which is China. Traits are the same way.
Now lets say when you start a new game you choose two things: your Civilization and your 'civilization template'. The Civilization is the Chinese, French, American, etc. The template is a set of traits and the UU(s) plus anything else that affects gameplay.
Why go to this trouble?
Right now the major problem with adding new civs is the need to balance traits and UUs with the existing civs. What if you had the same thirty-six templates that have already been playtested and are modified for best results? Then it does not matter whether you play as the Babylonians, Canadians, or Minoans because you can choose to play whatever template. Now you can play as the Egyptians with a 6/4/3 Cavalry UU and appropriate traits, or Americans with
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
This would be the Civ 2 solution. I am not so sure one can be quick to assume putting all back into the tech tree is easier. That is a lot to play-balance if you include technology as well. Really the answer to this quesiton(which is harder to balance) can't be answered without serious study.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
You could do that with a template system, but it was not my original intention. All I am saying is that you should choose who you want to play, say Egypt, and then choose the template you want to use. Say you wanted to play with Scinetific/Religious/ 2/2/1 Archers instead of Religious/Agricultural/2/1/1 Chariot.
Unique army templates will probably not be necessary from the looks of the pre-release info.
Unique army templates will probably not be necessary from the looks of the pre-release info.
Khan Quest
Prince
sir_schwick said:
In general the idea of each civ having a unique appearance for a given unit type would add a lot of flavor and variety to the game. But the units should still appear similar enough to be recognized for what they are. I would dread that every game I play with a new civ, I would have to click on the units to figure out what they are supposed to. Ok. I recognize the warrior unit for Babylon, Rome, France, China, Russia, Maya, Zulu , now onto spearmen )
I do very much like the evolving unit idea, but UUs are gotten rid rid of, another method would have to found to balance Golden Ages. Also, a UU trigged GA typically happens around the historically correct era. Perhaps the UU would still exist, but it would be "free", by not costing more shields or additional research.
thescaryworker
Builder
Well, it'd never hurt to predict some units. What would people think if we ditched the whole UU idea and made UB; unique buildings. Or, they could have UT; unique techs for each era. (Japan could be KAMILKAZE for the modern era) They could even combine all of the ideas.
For America and other civs that weren't around in the Ancient age, they could take the history or future of the area that that civ resided in. Evolving units would be cool, then I wouldn't have the "It would cost 13,200 gold to upgrade all x to y". However, it should only evolve if connected to that rescource. The units could evolve fast in cities, and superfast in or next to the capitol.
For America and other civs that weren't around in the Ancient age, they could take the history or future of the area that that civ resided in. Evolving units would be cool, then I wouldn't have the "It would cost 13,200 gold to upgrade all x to y". However, it should only evolve if connected to that rescource. The units could evolve fast in cities, and superfast in or next to the capitol.
A possible way to work around the UU problem is to see how Rise of Nations dealt with Civ specific traits.
The Americans for example get 'bonus' air units (Bombers) once you build an airfield. The unit themselves are qualitatively similar to other units, but because the Americans are given bonus units to reflect their mastery of flight, you'd expect that an AI or human playing the American Civ to field a larger than average airforce, all else equal.
It's an interesting idea that could be used as part of the Civ specific UU solution without having to have 10 different unique units for each Civ.
The Americans for example get 'bonus' air units (Bombers) once you build an airfield. The unit themselves are qualitatively similar to other units, but because the Americans are given bonus units to reflect their mastery of flight, you'd expect that an AI or human playing the American Civ to field a larger than average airforce, all else equal.
It's an interesting idea that could be used as part of the Civ specific UU solution without having to have 10 different unique units for each Civ.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Why not just give each civ four UU's, and distribute them across the ages depending on whose there? For example, America:
Middle Ages: Minuteman replaces Musketman (Either attack bonus, movement bonus, all terrain as roads, or ignore forests/hills/marshes/mountains)
Industrial Age: Buffalo Infantry replaces Rifleman (attack bonus)
Modern Times: F-15
Joint Strike Fighter or F-22 replaces Stealth Fighter, or B2B replaces Stealth Bomber.
Suggestion only .
Middle Ages: Minuteman replaces Musketman (Either attack bonus, movement bonus, all terrain as roads, or ignore forests/hills/marshes/mountains)
Industrial Age: Buffalo Infantry replaces Rifleman (attack bonus)
Modern Times: F-15
Joint Strike Fighter or F-22 replaces Stealth Fighter, or B2B replaces Stealth Bomber.
Suggestion only .
Lockesdonkey said:
It creates a balance nightmare, and may simply be too much work.
This seems to be one of the more popular suggestions so far, but it sort of defeats the point of having a UU when you get a UU for each age.
I still personally think the idea of giving custom graphics for Civ specific units is a good idea even if their stats are exactly the same.
The UU concept can simply be folded into something else, like what I suggested, which is bonus units or cheaper units that is qualitatively the same as everyone else.
Similar threads
