What Civs' Unique Abilites would you like to see changed?

[QuipCloud]

The Danes should get rid of that ridiculous Ski Infantry, and get a longboat instead. Ocean travelling Trireme that is.

That's true, I had forgotten all about Ski Infantry. Longboats would be much more appropriate.

 

[black213]

Am I the only one who thinks they should have updated the Aztec UA in G&K to give faith per kills, instead of culture?

Not only that would be more fitting for the "flavor" of the UA, but also would have an interesting gameplay impact, as it would make the Aztecs one of the fastest pantheon-makers in the game

I've had an idea that the Aztec UA was to give both culture and faith from kills, 50% of combat strength to be precise. (So killing a warrior gives 4 culture and 4 faith)
Would make sense since human sacrificing was a big part both of Aztec religion and culture (as was for other Mesoamerican cultures that are represented in the Aztec city list).
Would give the Aztecs an extra oomph as well.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It might be interesting to have the Ottomans have an additional part of their UA: 25% more gold from capturing enemy Cargo Ships.

 

[Zigzagzigal]

Polynesia could do with a change. Its problem is that it has low production, but tries to run for Culture victories.

So, here's my attempt at balance:

Polynesia

Unique Ability: Wayfinding: Can embark units immediately, +1 sight for embarked units. All sea and embarked units can cross ocean tiles with Optics. +1 production for all improved sea resources and Atolls.
Unique Unit: Maori Warrior: -10% to nearby units. Double embarkment defence.
Unique Improvement: Moai Statue: Tweaked for new Culture mechanics.

The point of the +1 production bonus is to keep Polynesia on a more even footing with other Cultural players, as Polynesia frequently suffers from low production. Better sea production means the Maoi won't hold you back from making you live around the coast.

Polynesia no longer gets ocean travel instantly. This is partially to balance with the World Congress mechanic. Polynesia's still first into the oceans, so you won't lose out too much on new lands and the like.

The Maori Warrior now has double embarkment defence, meaning that it's easier to defend your coasts (and emphasises them over inland regions.)

If at the end of it all, this is OP, the +1 sight in the UA can easily be dropped, or a higher technology requirement for some components.

 

[steveg700]

Why Ethiopia? I mean, I think they are pretty fine as it is.
The Mehal Sefari really isn't that interesting, but useful nonetheless. Steele makes them a top tier faith civ (altought I feel it should give +1 faith plus +1 for every 10 citizens in the city, to get along with their "tall empire" strategy and nerf it a little on the beggining of the game).

I like Ethiopia as it is. It is the only Civ with which I have played a full game and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's a highly withstanding civ and I think that's important if you're going to spread religion aggressively.

Because of the simple reason that Ethiopia have a very good UA indeed. It gives them a massive shield against larger civilizations and allows them to focus on producing wonders and other such buildings rather than many, many troops to defend themselves. They are a great and unique 'tall' civilization.

I, and others as you can see from this thread, want some changed because some really aren't very good at all. Their UAs are usually weak or only useful in very specific circumstances - look at the Celts.

Note that all three responses above work from the assumption that I must have been saying Ethiopia is underpowered (because why else would somebody want a civ to be changed?). Furthermore, they display the common perception that Ethiopia's UA is purely defensive in nature. Neither is the case.

Almost all of the requests in this thread are to fix civ's perceived as underpowered. And most of the suggested fixes for civ's like Germany predictably go the route of utter consistency and reliability. There's a sentiment that a "good" UA as one that doles out a steady stream of passive benefits that require no timing or planning to leverage. They're always optimal in any situation and agnostic towards variables such as map size, uncommon terrain, loadout, etc. UA's are "bad" or "useless" if they require players to maximize windows of opportunity, weigh risk-vs-reward, and make the most of the hand they're dealt. This is a conflation of optimal design with good design.

Ethiopia is one of the go-to civ's for Diety difficulty because it is overpowered. The 20% bonus is not purely defensive. As long they face a civ that has one more city than Ethiopia, they will enjoy this high combat bonus, even as they press the attack. Given that the AI has unlimited happiness and loves to settle lots of (frequently crappy) cities, it's a fairly nominal requirement. What truly makes the UA so gross is that its virtually an anomoly, because combat strength bonuses are almost non-existent as part of UA's (Persia, which has a much weaker bonus, is about it). One civ is getting a 20% bonus for all of its units from its UA, and no other civ is getting anything similar. That's unbalanced.

Typically in such discussions, the first routine, conjectural reubttal is to assert that wider civ's have better production and can outnumber Ethiopia. Imperical evidence demonstrates otherwise.

The second is to assert that the bonus works against conquest, because once Ethiopia starts conquering civ's, they'll become larger than their victims and lose the bonus. This is part of the fallacious notion that UA's are only good if they work for the entirety of the game. In fact, UA's can simply help take the runaway spot, and once the snowball starts rolling, that's typically all it really takes.

The third, and most egregiously incorrect, is to assert that as a smaller civ Ethiopia will fall behind on science and be stuck battling units from higher up the tech tree. Small/tall civ's can excel at science, and indeed are often quite superior to wide ones.

I would suggest that Ethiopia's be reined in in some fashion. Perhaps the bonus is only good in friendly territory, or only works on defense. Perhaps the size of the bonus should to some degree reflect the relative sizes of the two civ's rather than a flat 20%.

 

[Imalich]

Note that all three responses above work from the assumption that I must have been saying Ethiopia is underpowered (because why else would somebody want a civ to be changed?).

Actually, I agree they are overpowered. When I said fine, I meant that their gameplay is interesting enough to warrant player satisfaction. My proposal for the Steele's, for example, was meant as a nerf, even if it becomes better than the original at the long run (But I see I didn't express myself well enough, sorry for that). Unfontunately, I think it's more plausible that the developers balance other civilizations to Ethiopia standards than the contrary (of course, tweaking their bonus to 15% or some minor change like that is possible).

If I were to sugest a major change to the defensive play-style they had in mind for Ethiopia, I think it would be ideal that Ethiopian units gained their bonus only when close to their cities (something like the Sefari's ability).

I, and others as you can see from this thread, want some changed because some really aren't very good at all. Their UAs are usually weak or only useful in very specific circumstances - look at the Celts. Their UA is only useful (weakly so) at the very start of the game. From then on means next to nothing.
A better alternative would be: Druidic Lore: Unimproved forests produce 1 . Improved forests provide 1 and 1 .

An interesting idea nonetheless, even tough I think it would be unbalanced. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but whenever playing the Celts, I felt a huge gap of fun as their uniques became next to useless (awhile after the Pictish warrior became obsolete). But I, personally, think rather than adding bonuses for improved forests, they could add some bonuses to non-improved ones. This way the Celt player is rewarded for keeping those horrible tiles around their cities (and it would be a bit hard to abuse, since conquered cities tend to have cut down most of it's forests late-game, and there's not so much space for expansion)

Now, presenting another of my own probably unbalanced ideas:
Unimproved forests tiles adjacent to your city give +1 culture yield per age advanced (+1 classical; +2 medieval; +3 renaissance; +4 industrial; +5 modern; +6 future).
Is it too much? Maybe that would be balanced, now that the culture victory is not attainable via 'Utopia Project'. Or maybe their "druidic" forests could add tourism late-game, idk.

It might be interesting to have the Ottomans have an additional part of their UA: 25% more gold from capturing enemy Cargo Ships.

Just that? I see the Ottomans as one of the more uninsteresting (maybe even underpowered) civilizations, gameplay-wise (a real shame, as, historically speaking, they are one of my favorites). I'm really hoping some major changes to their UA...
Of course, that might be because I don't really like UU-only civilizations with a military focus, as I feel they have a very limited play-style range. Oh well...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Just that? I see the Ottomans as one of the more uninsteresting (maybe even underpowered) civilizations, gameplay-wise (a real shame, as, historically speaking, they are one of my favorites). I'm really hoping some major changes to their UA...
Of course, that might be because I don't really like UU-only civilizations with a military focus, as I feel they have a very limited play-style range. Oh well...

Yeah, most of the Civs that have a military UA combined with UUs are kind of boring to me. Babylon is quite boring to me too--powerful but uninteresting.

 

[andrewlt]

Yeah, most of the Civs that have a military UA combined with UUs are kind of boring to me. Babylon is quite boring to me too--powerful but uninteresting.

I don't even understand the historical reason for the Ottoman bonus. They were a steppe nomadic group that took advantage of Byzantine weakness to carve an empire. It's like if they gave America a bonus that is because of something the Israelis are currently doing.

 

[Arachnofiend]

I could see the Ottomans getting a bonus for choosing to annex their cities rather than puppeting them. Maybe even have it where the newly annexed city will automatically have it's name changed to the next thing on the Turkish city list for some fun flavor.

 

[Matthew.]

That same steppe nomadic group directed its focus to naval to compete on the Mediterranean and become a rival power as far as numbers and strength. I'm assuming that is what they were going for: Ottomans boosting up naval power quickly.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I could see the Ottomans getting a bonus for choosing to annex their cities rather than puppeting them. Maybe even have it where the newly annexed city will automatically have it's name changed to the next thing on the Turkish city list for some fun flavor.

Why they changed it, I can't say. Maybe they liked it better that way.

 

[steveg700]

I don't even understand the historical reason for the Ottoman bonus. They were a steppe nomadic group that took advantage of Byzantine weakness to carve an empire. It's like if they gave America a bonus that is because of something the Israelis are currently doing.

The Ottomans actually had many holdings on the Barbary Coast, and thereupon earned a reputations as far-ranging pirates and slavers.

I'm fine with double UU's, but I prefer that their unique abilities promote upwards. Also, the UA needs to be top-notch.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Am I the only one who thinks they should have updated the Aztec UA in G&K to give faith per kills, instead of culture?

Not only that would be more fitting for the "flavor" of the UA, but also would have an interesting gameplay impact, as it would make the Aztecs one of the fastest pantheon-makers in the game

I thought about this, but it giving culture is more intresting gameplay wise.

 

[steveg700]

Faith and culture can be intertwined. The Aztecs could use that culture to pursue Piety, for instance.

 

[Lord_Novantis]

How about + for unimproved cattle tiles?

Make this happen Firaxis! +1

 

[Furycrab]

Polynesia could do with a change. Its problem is that it has low production, but tries to run for Culture victories.

So, here's my attempt at balance:

Polynesia

Unique Ability: Wayfinding: Can embark units immediately, +1 sight for embarked units. All sea and embarked units can cross ocean tiles with Optics. +1 production for all improved sea resources and Atolls.
Unique Unit: Maori Warrior: -10% to nearby units. Double embarkment defence.
Unique Improvement: Moai Statue: Tweaked for new Culture mechanics.

The point of the +1 production bonus is to keep Polynesia on a more even footing with other Cultural players, as Polynesia frequently suffers from low production. Better sea production means the Maoi won't hold you back from making you live around the coast.

Polynesia no longer gets ocean travel instantly. This is partially to balance with the World Congress mechanic. Polynesia's still first into the oceans, so you won't lose out too much on new lands and the like.

The Maori Warrior now has double embarkment defence, meaning that it's easier to defend your coasts (and emphasises them over inland regions.)

If at the end of it all, this is OP, the +1 sight in the UA can easily be dropped, or a higher technology requirement for some components.

The problem I have here is that you are amplifying the problem they have right now.

They are likely going to be God or first tier on Island hop maps, but useless/practice civ on landlocked maps.

With the trade route changes people are speculating that they might be in a really good spot next exp on water maps because they can still get more trade partners earlier, get first dibs at WC, and get the ability to setup ocean trade routes (the nice lucrative ones) earlier than anyone else. If I were to change Polynesia I'd try to shift some of that power from island maps into something that works on all maps... It's just one of those things where I don't really see how without either nerfing the UA or making it beyond OP on water maps.

 

[steveg700]

I'm not sure why we need include that all culture civ's need production to maintain an equal footing with each other. Their UI is a source of culture that other civ's can't touch. As has been stated, the Maoi statues will likely generate tourism in the later game.

 

[VermelhoRed]

I don't even understand the historical reason for the Ottoman bonus. They were a steppe nomadic group that took advantage of Byzantine weakness to carve an empire. It's like if they gave America a bonus that is because of something the Israelis are currently doing.

Basically, they needed some other naval civ to make England company in vanilla. The Ottomans took the smallest straw.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

The Danes should get rid of that ridiculous Ski Infantry, and get a longboat instead. Ocean travelling Trireme that is.

In what way does Harald's existing UA not satisfy you as a longboat?

I hope Rome's ability completely flips around, to become something that actually makes the capital great and professes that greatness - i.e., mechanical boosts in both directions. Rome's UA has never felt like anything, only urging me to city spam, urging me to build buildings timed to the rest of the empire. I'm just cranking out a (super powerful) hammer bonus, inhibited from training units there. The ability manages to make adding wonders to Rome feel like a loss, which is the damning paradox.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Here is an idea for India that maintains the spirit of the original UA without being a math problem.

Monsoon Rains: population produces 20% less unhappiness, tiles that produce 1 or more food produce an additional +1 food during golden ages.