Unique Units

[jsciv69]

We all love to debate what Units should be included with certain Civs based on a chosen Leader. I don't write this as a fix all. But let's think of this idea if there is a Civ VII.
Every Civilization fields it's own special units. Let's have each Civilization get a handful of it's unique unit from every Era. The exception would be those Civs that didn't exist until a given Era. For instance an American Civ would have Standard Units up until the Industrial Era/ or late 19th century. Then it starts producing it's own units. Ancient Civs, on the other hand would have unique units in virtually every Era. This way no matter the Leader. Each Civ will have a good amount of specialty units in the later Eras. And may the same thought can go with buildings, and infrastructure.

 

[Zaarin]

So...every civilization except China, Persia, and India are screwed? On the one hand, civs that didn't exist past the Ancient Era like Babylon and Egypt would have to be hyper-aggressive in the Ancient Era to stand a chance at continued existence; on the other hand civs that didn't exist in the early ages will be even more at a disadvantage as the Ancient civs have to take them out before they start rolling out their unique units. This would be a balance nightmare.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

How about every civ gets at least one UU, with the possibility of another depending on the leader?

On the one hand, civs that didn't exist past the Ancient Era like Babylon and Egypt would have to be hyper-aggressive in the Ancient Era to stand a chance at continued existence

Pharaonic Egypt didn't make it to the Classical Era?

 

[Evie]

Not meaningfully. It was a collapsing shadow of its old shelf that spent most of its classical era existance under foreign rule in one way or another.

 

[Zaarin]

Pharaonic Egypt didn't make it to the Classical Era?

What Evie said. The Classical era was a period of collapse for Egypt, like the previous interregnums except this one didn't end. At any rate, my point was that the overwhelming majority of civilizations existed for one era, or two at most, and they are going to be at a considerable disadvantage to the small number of civilizations that can be argued to have existed longer--which is basically Persia, India, and China.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As a confirmed and persistent military historian (what, you hadn't noticed?) my problem with all the Unique Units as they are presented in the game now is that they are associated with a Leader or Civ regardless of the In-Game situation.

So, an England in the middle of a Pangaea continent gets a Sea Dog
A Mongolia on a small island with no horses gets Keshiks

How useful . . .

This problem also persists with all the Uniques that are permanently tied to a Leader or Civ, but (to me, at least) it is most pronounced with Unique Units, many of which are, or their unique attributes are, tied to the terrain they are trying to maneuver and fight on, and it has persisted as a Game Mechanic in all the Civ games: if your Civ is tied to a given terrain/climate for its advantages, you are SOL if your start is in any other terrain/climate. I have quit counting the number of times I have stopped trying to play the game I wanted to play after restarting with England or Norway 6 or more times and never getting a start anywhere near any coast.

So, I think every Civ needs some kind of choice or alternative Unique Unit(s) to allow for Utterly Non-Historical Starts. And I think the option to change Uniques in some way should be present in the game.

Because the game will inevitably include Civs without a wide range of Unique Units applicable to multiple Eras or periods of the game - let's face it, if the game includes more than 20 different Civs, one of them is going to be America/USA with access to only the late Eras of the game historically, or Rome that has access, historically, to only one Era (Classical), then some 'creative' Uniques will have to be included.

Generic Uniques sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it isn't: "Generic" in this case means available under certain conditions to any Civ, "Unique" means the Unit has different attributes or additional attributes compared to the Standard Units in the game.

An Example:
Spearman is a Standard Unit in the game, available to anyone who knows how to work Bronze (yes, there were much earlier warriors/soldiers armed with Spears, but the first indication of Spearmen in a dense, organized formation of ranks and files that can fight off any mounted troops dates from the beginning of the Bronze Age in Mesopotamia).
Hoplite - the 'standard' (or at least Perennial) Greek Unique Unit, Classical Era or its equivalent in Civ VII
Immortal - the Achaemenid Persian Unique (Infantry) Unit, also Classical Era
Fyrd - a potential Anglo-Saxon Unique Spearman

But "Spearman" in variations, are found everywhere that Cheap Infantry are required, which is nearly everywhere. So, there are numerous variations on the theme of "spear" from which Generic Unique Spearman Units could be designated:

Peltast - Spearman with a bonus movement in rough terrain
Dagger-Axeman (Ji) - a primitive Halberd: Spearman with less malus against Melee Units.
Lugged Spear - a Spear designed for fencing and parrying, so also less Malus against Melee Units
Half-Pike - an extra-long spear held in both hands, but about 2/3 the length of true Pike: men with different weapons, like swords or bows, can stand in front of the 'spearmen' and still be protected by the protruding points, so this unit provides an Anti-Mounted Bonus to adjacent units.

Each such Generic would have very specific conditions for its selection, but they could be selected by more than one Civ if the conditions are met: the Half-Pike was used, for example, by Sumerians, Chou and Han Dynasty Chinese, Picts, Scots and possibly Greeks, the Lugged Spear by Germans, Romans, and Chinese, the 'Peltast' type by Greeks, Thracians, Romans, Persians, and almost all of the various 'semi-Barbarian' (they could be depicted as a Civ or Barbs) Gaulic groups in modern Spain and France and the Germanic tribes in the early Classical Era.

So, the fact that you are playing America and your Unique is a P-51D fighter aircraft that you won't see until the Atomic Era doesn't mean you are Unique-less until then - American Lugged Spearmen can be marching around in the Classical Era under their Mullet and Stripes banners . . .

 

[Zaarin]

While I am open to the possibility of more dynamic civilization development, I'm also hesitant lest civs start losing their flavor. Still, this could to some extent offset the fact that civs with later UUs tend to be perceived as handicapped.

 

[mitsho]

I agree that the "Unique Units are better forms of Generic Units" is not a good design. It basically tells every gamer to pump out that unit when its time comes around and use it, neglecting the other units in the arsenal. The system seems ripe for innovation. @Boris Gudenuf provides a good example of how one such could look, and I don't have a formulated other proposal in my head. But here are some random thoughts:

- What if all units were generic, but not all civs had access to everything (kind of like Age of Empires 2 - bare the unique units they still had ). The elephant unit(s) would be a good example here. That line could be shared by a group of civs and thus allow freedom for doing other unique units for India for example. The Knight as a medieval European speciality, while other areas get different heavy horsemen? Sounds fun to me. The triggers for these special but shared units could be cultural or map-based (elephant resource available9.

- Should the look of the generic units change by the culture? Yes, it gives flavour, but perhaps it makes everything too complicated.

- Civ IV made the unique units special by tieing the uniqueness to a promotion (often) which then carried forward. That was fun and why not replace the unique unit with a unique promotion? Testudo archers may not make much sense, but they could be very fun. ;-)

- The one unique per civ is a sort of a straightjacket. Having more unique units is fun as shown by civs with several ones. That also allows for naval unique units without the civ feeling cheated out on a pangaea map. Having more unique units is fun and may also allow a distinction between a "big" (as in present in several eras of the game) civ such as France towards a "one-era" civ such as Babylon.

Again, just a few ideas, I believe the unit and unique unit system is ripe for innovation, just how?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Each such Generic would have very specific conditions for its selection, but they could be selected by more than one Civ if the conditions are met: the Half-Pike was used, for example, by Sumerians, Chou and Han Dynasty Chinese, Picts, Scots and possibly Greeks, the Lugged Spear by Germans, Romans, and Chinese, the 'Peltast' type by Greeks, Thracians, Romans, Persians, and almost all of the various 'semi-Barbarian' (they could be depicted as a Civ or Barbs) Gaulic groups in modern Spain and France and the Germanic tribes in the early Classical Era.

I feel like that is best served as being represented graphically by region rather then by having different attributes, which they kind of do already such as Mesoamerican/Andean spearman wear jaguar helmets.

I kind of feel the same way about buildings as well. For example instead of either the Aztec or Maya getting a ballcourt unique that could represent the generic arena for Mesoamerican civs. That would also open up the possibility for each of them to have another unique infrastructure like the chinampas or observatory again.

Still I wouldn't mind uniques for minor factions/city states that you can hire. They at least started that in NFP with Lahore.

- What if all units were generic, but not all civs had access to everything (kind of like Age of Empires 2 - bare the unique units they still had ). The elephant unit(s) would be a good example here. That line could be shared by a group of civs and thus allow freedom for doing other unique units for India for example. The Knight as a medieval European speciality, while other areas get different heavy horsemen? Sounds fun to me. The triggers for these special but shared units could be cultural or map-based (elephant resource available9.

I've mentioned this before but if they bring corporations back I'd love for each resource to have their own unique bonuses. If you have a monopoly on Ivory and build that industry (corporation) you can get the ability to build a War Elephant UU.

Other civs like India, any other SEA civ, Carthage etc., are able to access their Elephant UU without the ivory resource.

Most likely the generic War Elephant UU would be the same as India's Varu in the first place meaning there wouldn't be any great need for India to gather ivory in the first place, unless you just want to prevent others from getting them.

However civs like Khmer could still get a generic War Elephant UU with the ivory corporation along with their Ballista Elephants.

 

[Evie]

I'm kind of thinking for generic-uniques, what if generic uniques had something like this:

If you meet the situational requirements for a generic unique; OR are a civilization historically associated with that unique, you can researchor unlock the unit. So England can always research/unlock sea dogs if they want, but so can any civilization with a navy at least a certain size and harbors in at least X% of their cities (or whatever),

BUT: if you're both - eg, England meets the navy size and harbor requirements - then the research/unlock is completed for free for you.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

While I am open to the possibility of more dynamic civilization development, I'm also hesitant lest civs start losing their flavor. Still, this could to some extent offset the fact that civs with later UUs tend to be perceived as handicapped.

Agree that "homogenized" Civs rather defeats the purpose of attempts to have anything Unique about them.
Several ideas:

People have already mentioned it, but different 'skins'/appearances for the Units based on the parent civilization could serve to make a Generic Unique Unit more specific. To keep this from becoming a graphic sink and identification nightmare, I suggest that possibly the way to do it would be to have Regional variations for Standard and Unique units (European, Middle Eastern, East Asian, Native American, African? - I think no more than 5 - 6 maximum)

A graphic symbol/heraldry/iconography unique to the specific Civ that can be applied to any Unit adopted in that specific game: this could be on a banner (which could be 'Uniqued' by being a flag, vexilia, horse-tail standard, or other variation), shield, or tabard/surcoat on the figure(s). Snce the Civs already have symbols associated with them, versons of the same symbols could be used to tie everything together.

Colors can obviously tie the units to the Civ, and I'd actually think that a combination of the regional skin with a specific symbol on the banner/standard and specific color on the 'uniform' or costume should make even the most far-sighted old lump like me able to tell who a unit belongs to and what kind of unit it is.

And a point that just occurred to me:

Take @Evie's suggestion that a Unique can be 'free' to its original Civ and unlockable/researchable by others under very specific in-game conditions, then the fact that, say, Germany's Redcoat Unique Unit that they unlocked and researched is dressed in Prussian Blue coats (German color) and carrying a flag with a Maltese Cross on it (German icon) would make it graphically distinct and Unique even compared to England's 'Automatic' (semi-automatic, anyway) Redcoat Unique - and make it unnecessary to have a second, separate Upgraded Line Infantry/Fusilier Unit for Germany to represent the Prussian Musketeers/Grenadiers that terrified Europe in the middle of the 18th century.

 

[civac]

Do you like unique units to be so powerful that they make a large difference in the face of difference in tech level and production capabilities as well as the geostrategic situation?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Do you like unique units to be so powerful that they make a large difference in the face of difference in tech level and production capabilities as well as the geostrategic situation?

Not really, but I do want a Combat System in which Unique Units are indicative of the type of battle that the Civ prefers to fight.
My version of such a Combat System (WIP) would hide most of the Factors and math, but would include consideration of the pre-battle maneuvering, input from the gamer on how he wants his army to fight the battle, calculation of the results of the interaction between the two sides' strength, troops types and input, and then calculation of the post battle pursuit, retreat, rout, etc.
After all, the minimum game turn is 1 year while the average battle for most of the game took a few hours, so the System has to include both rthe preliminaries and the consequences of what happenedon the battlefield itself.

This would, to take a familiar example, mean that having the Hoplite as a Unique Unit indicates that you are going to fight pretty deliberate straight up slogging matches - it's about the only thing Hoplites can do, but they can do it Very Well. They aren't going to suddenly scamper after the enemy in a pursuit afterwards, though, and if they have to retreat, they are not going to outrun enemy light infantry or cavalry in any circumstances.

On the other hand, the Civ with Hussars as their Unique Unit is going to prefer much more mobile battles - choosing what I call a Posture of Mobile Attack or Delay which maximizes the effects of their mobility - and pursuing to destruction anybody trying to run away. For them, charging All Out against Hoplites would be simply Suicidal, just as Hoplites trying to make a Mobile Attack or Pursuit against an army of light cavalry would be an act of utter futility.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

- What if all units were generic, but not all civs had access to everything (kind of like Age of Empires 2 - bare the unique units they still had ). The elephant unit(s) would be a good example here. That line could be shared by a group of civs and thus allow freedom for doing other unique units for India for example. The Knight as a medieval European speciality, while other areas get different heavy horsemen? Sounds fun to me. The triggers for these special but shared units could be cultural or map-based (elephant resource available9.

I love this idea and desperately want it to be implemented, but with our current system of presenting a Civ's unique traits, I don't know where this information would go or how it would be worded. Would it be in the Civ ability? If so, how would it be worded? Using your example of elephants, would we tell the player about those included by saying: "This civ can train elephant units" or should we inform them about who is excluded by saying: "This civ can't train elephant units"

Boring logistics aside, ohmygoshIwantthisinthegamesobaaaaad

- The one unique per civ is a sort of a straightjacket. Having more unique units is fun as shown by civs with several ones.

To continue shamelessly promoting mods, as one does, the Steel and Thunder: Unique Units mods by @Deliverator (whose username is Deliverator23 on Steam) do exactly this and just give every Civ more unique units. Though, I might recommend having a bit more restraint than me and only having one of them active at a time lest you end up giving England a replacement for almost every single Renaissance era naval unit

 

[BuchiTaton]

More unique units for each civs means less playable civs by default.
UU need more time, work and money for development, expend many interesting roles and mechanics on the same civ, and of course more complicated work to balance between civs.

Everybody know and many people would like to have five UU's for "the big names" like England, Persia or China, etc. But what about civs like Cree, Maori or Zulu?

If we want more UU without the problems from playable civs, use MINOR CIVS for all those famous mercenary and auxiliar troops that fought for great powers all along worlds history. These minor civs would work as any other element in the map with the advanteges of being accesible to any player that capture/ally them (so no ballance issue), the units would be recruited directly from the proper minor culture (no fussy requirements). Also would be mostly from civs that dont have all the info and/or popularity to be a playable civ, so whole designs would not be wasted like for main civs.

 

[dagriggstar]

I view stuff like civ has naval UU but no water as a failure of map generation not civ design.

I would keep one unit per civ, with the option of having a further unit tied to a militaristic leader choice, but it has to actually be a choice. Like when there is no choice, well I think of the Janissary as an Ottoman unit not a Sulieman unit, since it's all part of the same package.
The reason is that the more UUs in the game, the less unique each individual one feels. Oh cool, I have a unique Swordsman just like 75% of my opponents ! Defeats the purpose of it being unique.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

With this discussion. One more 'factors' determining which UU player can have is 'Military Doctrones'.
While it doesn't affect aging up progress AT ALL. it affect UU choices as player civ focus at a given time period and as map options (with this. a map with no sea or minimal water basin can cross out naval units, techs and civics relevants to these units entirely.)
There are five main doctrimes.
A. Infantry oriented
B. Mobile
C. Artillery
D. Naval: Sea Dominance (Permits Aircraft carriers and upgrades to supercarriers)
E. Naval: Sea Denials (Permits Battlecarrier and larger warships, which are expensives but significantly more powerful. Notice that Russia prefers larger warships even with their WIP. Lidyer class 'Destroyers' are actually about the size of Kara class cruisers. Smaller than Kirovs but surely larger than even Zummwalts.

^ Russian called it 'Destroyer'. the sizes and existenced of high tower bridge surly surpassed American counterparts (Burkes and Ticoes, both of which are actually built on Frigate hulls of similiar sizes). even the bridge design is very much inspired by Leiji Matsumoto's 'Space Warship Designs' in his scifi manga and anime series particularly Captain Harlock, and Space Battleship Yamato

Player may chose up to TWO doctrines but there are restrictions as well. this includes sea lanes VS trade routes AND resources under control. if you have no horses nor easy access to oil. mobile doctrines will not be possible.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

More unique units for each civs means less playable civs by default.
UU need more time, work and money for development, expend many interesting roles and mechanics on the same civ, and of course more complicated work to balance between civs.

Everybody know and many people would like to have five UU's for "the big names" like England, Persia or China, etc. But what about civs like Cree, Maori or Zulu?

If we want more UU without the problems from playable civs, use MINOR CIVS for all those famous mercenary and auxiliar troops that fought for great powers all along worlds history. These minor civs would work as any other element in the map with the advanteges of being accesible to any player that capture/ally them (so no ballance issue), the units would be recruited directly from the proper minor culture (no fussy requirements). Also would be mostly from civs that dont have all the info and/or popularity to be a playable civ, so whole designs would not be wasted like for main civs.

I've argued in the past that Civ needs a good Mercenary System: the Mercenaries Mod in Civ V was one that I never played a game without once I downloaded it.

A good Mercenary System would give the player and the AI Major Civs the option of 'renting out' parts of their armies if they so choose, renting parts of other Major and Minor Civ armies and Units, and even forming new Units from elements of other Major/Minor Civs (French Legion Etranger and most of the late Imperial Roman Army, fur instance). It would also include, as you say, a great many of the Unique Units and - another plus, to my way of thinking - make it impossible to build entire armies out of Unique Units without going Bankrupt.

Just for starters, there are some types of Units that are only available for hire from non-Major Civ sources: Horse Archers were always hired from pastoral groups: by Rome, Byzantium, China, the early Caliphates - even classical Athens hired 300 Scythians rather than try to learn how to shoot a bow accurately without falling off the horse in the process.
Some others that spring to mind, historically:
Hessian/German 18th century Grenadiers or Fusiliers ( the Revolutionary "Hessians" weren't all from Hessa)
Vikings (Varangian Guard)
Cretan Archers
Baleric Slingers
Genovese Crossbowmen
Swiss Pikemen
Sarmatian armored lancers (Knights about 1000 years earlier)
Samurai (does Ronin ring a bell? - they were hired by both Spanish and Portuguese, among others)

In other words, there is ample scope for both regular and Unique Units as Mercenaries, available from Major Civs, Minor Civs, City States, or Barbarians.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Vikings (Varangian Guard)

I've always felt it kind of weird seeing people make Kievan Rus as part of Russia, just because of the possible implications of having Kiev as a potential city or capital of Russia. That being said would love a Kiev City-State where you can hire a Varangian Guard unit if it doesn't come as a Byzantine UU.

Samurai (does Ronin ring a bell? - they were hired by both Spanish and Portuguese, among others)

I mean if you want Japanese mercenaries why not Shinobi?

 

[Evie]

Spies are already annoying enough without adding a UU spy!