This is a perennial discussion that always follows the same pattern. Someone rattles off a list of civ's that have bad UA's, and the replies consist largely of gainsayers who insist all the abilities are powerful.
For me personally, Civ is a single-player experience, so the issue of whether a UA is underpowered or overpowered is not of primary importance. What is of primary importance that the three uniques combine to make playing that particular feel special and different from playing other civ's.
England just doesn't accomplish that. I don't see where any of its uniques make me evoke a new style of play. I feel largely the same about Rome, although I tend to fast-track iron working in the latter case.
I'd prefer more abilities that reward long-term investments or risks. I'm content with Byzantium, because it's clear up front what stakes are on the table. I need to get a religion as soon as I can. And if I can't get one...well, I was outperformed. I don't want a consolation prize so I can keep puttering along. Instead, I'd regard it like I'd regard seeing that a civ has entered the atomic age while I was still in the renaissance. Too bad, so sad. Start a new game and try again.
The Celts are a "fast-tracker" civ, with religion being where they get a head start. What people don't seem to get is that you don't necessarily avoid building lumber mils for the entire game. Rather, you have to decide when you don't need the extra faith anymore. The obnoxious thing about playing them is that the player has no option to defer estabilishing a pantheon, and the Celts unlock theirs so quickly that the player hasn't had a good chance to look around and take stock of the terrain. This is why the AI Celts usually pick the city ranged-attack boost. Beyond that, I'd like the Picts UA to promote upwards.
Sweden's UA is fun. A good, active ability that requires you to weigh costs and benefits. The Hakks are kind of lame though, since I'm going to be gifting my GG's.
For me personally, Civ is a single-player experience, so the issue of whether a UA is underpowered or overpowered is not of primary importance. What is of primary importance that the three uniques combine to make playing that particular feel special and different from playing other civ's.
England just doesn't accomplish that. I don't see where any of its uniques make me evoke a new style of play. I feel largely the same about Rome, although I tend to fast-track iron working in the latter case.
I'd prefer more abilities that reward long-term investments or risks. I'm content with Byzantium, because it's clear up front what stakes are on the table. I need to get a religion as soon as I can. And if I can't get one...well, I was outperformed. I don't want a consolation prize so I can keep puttering along. Instead, I'd regard it like I'd regard seeing that a civ has entered the atomic age while I was still in the renaissance. Too bad, so sad. Start a new game and try again.
The Celts are a "fast-tracker" civ, with religion being where they get a head start. What people don't seem to get is that you don't necessarily avoid building lumber mils for the entire game. Rather, you have to decide when you don't need the extra faith anymore. The obnoxious thing about playing them is that the player has no option to defer estabilishing a pantheon, and the Celts unlock theirs so quickly that the player hasn't had a good chance to look around and take stock of the terrain. This is why the AI Celts usually pick the city ranged-attack boost. Beyond that, I'd like the Picts UA to promote upwards.
Sweden's UA is fun. A good, active ability that requires you to weigh costs and benefits. The Hakks are kind of lame though, since I'm going to be gifting my GG's.