[GS] Unique Units

[acluewithout]

How do people feel about UUs in the game?

Some thoughts.

Good variety. Pretty much all the UUs seem fairly good to me. There’s a good variety of UUs across unit lines and eras, and a good variety of special abilities. But what I think FXS has done very well, is sort of variety of meta mechanics: like, Aztech start with a UU, Gilga doesn’t but can build them from the start; some Civs get two UUs, with Alex being super special because he gets his at the same time.

GS has made this even better, by making Strategic Resources another dimension - some need them, some don’t.

There’s also some great “technically, all our units are uniques” stuff; eg Sythia (all light cav), Zulu and Aztech (basically everything feels unique).

Upgrading &Replacing is a mess. I don’t mind that some UU have to be hard built. It’s another meta dimension to play with. Like, hard building Red Coats is fine because you buy them with gold; Egypt’s UU replacing Heavy Chariot is fine because... it’s different, guess.

But the whole upgrading or not thing doesn’t seem actually well thought out. It seems weird to me Immortals replace Swordsmen - surely you should be able to build both, like how India can build Horsemen and Heffalumps?

Resources seem a bit of a mess in a couple of places too. I’m really not convinced Beserkers should use Iron given you have to hard build them.

More Civs need two units. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like some Civs are undercooked with UUs. Specifically, China and Korea both feel like they could use another UU to be less tediously passive: some sort of pikeman or horseman for China, and a Turtle Boat for Korea.

Standouts. Legions are just great. The ability to chop and repair is really cool. (Pity Forts aren’t more useful). Love the U/Boat and Brazil UU. Random boats are very fun. Love all the Cav units. Love Archer Chariots.

Not many duds. I don’t think there are many dud units. Hoplites aren’t bad, but feel hugely underwhelming. Sea Dogs are technically good, but also just the worst. Anything else? I think Kvseur and Samurai and Berserkers are pretty cool. America’s plane is lame, but they get two UUs so it actually works out okay and it’s cool having a plane. Mounties suck. Just suck. But they’re like a whole other category of suck.

Any other loves, hates, etc?

 

[God of Kings]

Mounties can be improved by having them also provide loyalty when garrisoned on top of their existing bonuses. It's historically accurate.

 

[acluewithout]

Mounties can be improved by having them also provide loyalty when garrisoned on top of their existing bonuses. It's historically accurate.

Personally, I think Mounties are “okay”, but what sucks is that they’re the only UU canada gets. If you’re going to have a Canada Civ, then they’re going to have Mounties. But having a Mountie as a UU means Canada is caught between either having the Mountie be a sort of martial / military unit (which isn’t historical) or not really having a military unit (which is lame).

A better solution would be for Canada to just have another UU maybe based on WW1 or WW2. Say something like the Digger.

 

[God of Kings]

Personally, I think Mounties are “okay”, but what sucks is that they’re the only UU canada gets. If you’re going to have a Canada Civ, then they’re going to have Mounties. But having a Mountie as a UU means Canada is caught between either having the Mountie be a sort of martial / military unit (which isn’t historical) or not really having a military unit (which is lame).

A better solution would be for Canada to just have another UU maybe based on WW1 or WW2. Say something like the Digger.

Take a look at Steel and Thunder by @Deliverator

He added the HMCS Haida for Canada. He also added new unique units for all civs as well.

 

[acluewithout]

Yeah, S&T has some good ideas.

I’m not sure everyone actually needs two UUs, but a few Civs would benefit from having doubles: specifically, Canada, China and Korea.

I could see an argument for Rome too, although Legion is already very strong.

Civ V Greece had two UUs, but I’m not sure that’s needed in Civ VI. They just need the Hoplites to be better.

Alex’s and Hungary’s double UUs are very well done. Vicky, America and Norway also do it well in that they have one land and one not land UU, although a bit sucky for Eleanor she only gets the Sad Salty SeaDog.

Personally, I think the Varu is the best UU in terms of gameplay. It’s really different and you’re forced to use it as part of a mixed army, which is great.

 

[Sostratus]

Independent of unit costs in general, I find some of the ways UU costs are handled to be displeasing.

I imagine that every UU is a special version of a generic unit (which may or may not exist in the game- the military tactics UUs being longswordsmen or redcoats being special riflemen) and the design theory is that each UU is:
Base unit stats + bonus
I think the average bonus for most units is worth +7 (5-10 mostly) strength situationally. This is a conditional 30%ish combat bonus. Khevsur are a good example. Just a plain old 45 str/2move melee unit with +7 on hills.
Okay, so what happens when they want to make a unit especially strong? They (sometimes) attempt to keep the power budget in line by raising the unit's cost.
Legions are a great example. They get +4 all the time* and can build forts.
*originally +5. The fact that the Ngao has never been buffed to 36 strength to me suggests the first patch's boost to swords was not handled properly (I think they meant to give all swordsman class units +1, not just sword units specifically. See the hypasist for an example. I think like many things they haven't gone back to it because they think incorrectly they would look foolish.) Okay, so in exchange for being really strong, they made the legion cost 110 production instead of 90.
Alrighty.

Toa also cost 120 prod, and they mentioned in the livestream this was specifically because it was so good. But this would suggest that the varu is overpriced since toa are reskinned varu with the ability to build forts and also have no upkeep.

Where am i going with this?
Okay, so some units have part of their power budget being cheaper. Impi are a good example- they are really cheap. Or janissaries. But without a cost reduction, janissaries would already be very powerful units- permanent +5 strength is like a legionized musket. And a free promo! Surely they should cost more? But no, they cost half. (The devs already knew the population loss thing was trivially circumvented, I don't consider it to really even be a part of the unit design in practice.)
But some UUs don't cost any resources.
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

I like that there are all these points of distinction for UUs. And some UUs certainly get extra power as part of the overall civ kit.
But i would really like some consistency around the variations within a unit. Making a unit half price has serious implications in a game economy where gold is not a limiting factor. That should clearly cost something. Making a unit more expensive should clearly grant something. As it is, I have a hard time reconciling the toa with legions. Again, toa are literally varu that build forts. Same stats in every other way. Is fort building considered worthless in terms of production?
If so, then the +4 boost legions have is almost perfectly negated by the 22% cost increase. If fort building (and Pa are even stronger than forts, btw) is worthless, then is the game suggesting that the -5 debuff aura is worth 10 production?
Legions 110 vs Toa 120. Both have 40 strength and build forts, toa have the aura.
We just established +4 strength for swords was worth 20 production. Why is effective +5 (ignore that it stacks) worth just 10 extra cost?
~~~~~~~~~~
What I'm really trying to get at is that I think some of these UU attributes are not balanced with their costs and downsides and if the game had a bigger MP scene we would see that play out. It's not something that going to be noticed in SP that much.
But i do think it would be helpful to establish how much power a UU that costs the same should have just for being a UU, and then establish that having more power in a UU means it comes at the expense of cost, or some other part of the kit. This is from the design standpoint that civs in the same general niche could be more readily identified by things they focus on.
For example, two early game naval powers. One could make it clear to players that civ A has an extra powerful unit (because of strength or cost or range or some factor beyond a normal UU) and the other could communicate that sure it has an early UU ship, but its more about the unique infrastructure or utilizing the leader ability or something.
Then instead of "civ A is just a better civ B" we could have "Civ A has a solid coastal expansion game, but civ B's fleet is absolutely top dog in the early game." And players wouldn't need to come on the CFC forums to read this, it's communicated through the civ descriptions that civ B's Ed_Beachcraft are absolute dreadnoughts. Same idea as how science buildings and wonders are blue and the culture ones are purple.

 

[Victoria]

Egypt’s UU replacing Heavy Chariot is fine....It seems weird to me Immortals replace Swordsmen -

there is a discrepancy here. The inability to upgrade, lack of maintenance, free of resource type abilities are way to all over the place and feel spurious. Also what it is affects you more, healing knights are quite OP while shooty chariots stoping knights is annoying to me.

But some UUs don't cost any resources.
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

The Maori had no horses, nor iron, nor niter. When the did get guns they were bought with war slaves. I am sort of OK with no maintenance and no iron for these. However, allowing them to repair pillages was a step too far.

It is all over the place with everything and I suspect they are fine with this.

I feel the mustang & seadogs are underrated by the OP. One thing that wrecks such units it lateness to the game.

Mounties are crap, yes I have played Canada.

 

[acluewithout]

@Sostratus I was so hoping you’d post on this thread. I was not disappointed.

I agree the unit balancing is a bit wacky in places. Kongo’s UU and it’s reduced strength is silly. Moreso it’s gone on for so long.

Pricing units must be tricky though given all the moving pieces, particularly early v late units and era score etc.

Overall though, with the massive exception of the Mountie and Hoplites, I think most units are well designed.

Although. Yeah. Janissaries population thing is just daft given you can basically ignore it. The logic of that escapes me. It seems like a good idea with just terrible implementation. And I just don’t get Maori balancing at all including Toa. It’s silly Maori are so strong - not because they’re OP, but because it just removes all challenge they’d otherwise have from their unique start.

(An aside: I know, but I also don’t get why some City States don’t have unique units. That seems like an absolute no-brainer in terms of mechanics and fun. A few City States have a Royal Guard or something; which will wreck you if you declare war on the City State or they get dragged into a War against you; or that you can use if you levy their Military. They don’t even need new models or animations - just re-colour Sweden’s unit or RedCoats or whatever.

Currently, the only UU you can earn (ie that you don’t start with) is the Monk. And getting them is surprisingly irritating. If you don’t choose Monks as a belief, you’re relying on getting spread a religion that already has them or building that one wonder (and that only ever gets you three).

Wait. Where was I going with this again?)

Oh yeah. Sea Dogs suck.

@Victoria Speaking of SeaDogs. I promise I'm not underrating them. I just don't like them. You get free units from your RND then more free unts from your Sea Dog so their ability already feels redundant, and the Sea Dog units don't benefit from the already buggy +1 RND movement... I guess the Sea Dog itself benefits from the +1 and extra great admirals, and I know they can be stacked into armies etc., but I'd rather just build Frigates for all that faff.

I think SeaDogs made more sense in Vanilla. England was sort of like the Borg - building their army via conquest. Melee units by capturing cities, and naval units by defeating enemy units. But even then, there's still this disconnect between having a Civ that has harbours and builds Naval units and having a unit that captures naval units (which then don't get the bonus).

...Well. That said. I may have softened a little on my dislike for the SeaDog. A little. They are a good unit (ignoring my peeves about them). And, hey, pirate ship. That's cool. But they still feel a bit underwhelming or misplaced to me. I just haven't found the fun with them.

I do also agree the no resource thing etc. is a bit all over the place. It's not a total mess (although maybe it is and I just haven't looked hard enough), but it could use some tuning. I just thought overall this stuff wasn't so bad, although I think resources more generally need a rework particularly around niter.

Sorry. I my arguments here may not be totally consistent...

 

[Sostratus]

The inability to upgrade, lack of maintenance, free of resource type abilities are way to all over the place and feel spurious.

Pricing units must be tricky though given all the moving pieces

It's these two pieces I dislike about UUs. Although ITT I am specifcially targeting the cost as in, if the base unit costs X, some UUs cost 1.2X, etc. Completely agnostic to the messier overall unit cost question
And as far as the resourcelessness - by introducing a resource system for some units they imply that resources are a limiter on power. IMO a UU's power budget ("30% better") is almost entirely used up by making a unit like a knight resource free.
This isn't at all accounted for. I would even be happy with UUs getting increased resource cost like 25 iron etc. You could make Janissaries 10 niter base instead of half production. (Cheaper production IMO should only belong to units that don't need a material resource to build. Fuel units would be okay, I think.)

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Honestly I don't much enjoy the 2 UU civs, as I tend to enjoy the other unique "stuff" more than the units.

 

[Sostratus]

Honestly I don't much enjoy the 2 UU civs, as I tend to enjoy the other unique "stuff" more than the units.

Its cool that some units are tied to leader abilities, but most civs only have one leader so...
I really don't like units like the crouching dragon that just feel out of place. I think units like the rough rider, which filled in a gap in the upgrade tree, are cool, but having a unit that simply adds onto what you already have (crouching dragon + xbow at the same time) is a bit wonky. Make one replace the other in those situations. Just commit.

Also, rough riders should replace cuirassiers now that they exist. Fight me, naysayers

 

[Jkchart]

Its cool that some units are tied to leader abilities, but most civs only have one leader so...
I really don't like units like the crouching dragon that just feel out of place. I think units like the rough rider, which filled in a gap in the upgrade tree, are cool, but having a unit that simply adds onto what you already have (crouching dragon + xbow at the same time) is a bit wonky. Make one replace the other in those situations. Just commit.

Also, rough riders should replace cuirassiers now that they exist. Fight me, naysayers

The Crouching Tiger is one of my least favorite unique units. I'll take a crossbowman any day over that unit. 2 range and promotions is better IMO.

Also, totally cool if the Rough Rider replaces Cuirassier. Might as well now.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Monties are good. You aren't supposd to be conquering the world as Canada. You can use them to make cheap national parks, which is one of Canada's two strongest victories.

 

[Pietato]

Units which can only be built generally suck because production in this game is so inferior to gold, and by the time you have built them, you have missed your window of opportunity.