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

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.
 
India certainly needs to be changed. Not even really worth discussing how since there are thousands of ways they could do it.

Byzantium needs changed. I don't even mind that you have a chance to miss using their UA. If you are going to play as Byzantium, you already know what you are in for. What they do need is not to have one UU that relies on horses, and another on water. I modified my Byzantines to have a grassland start, where they are likely to get horses, and they were better. I think that changes to the social policies may fix Byzantium indirectly.
 
'MURICAAAAA:
Arguably the worst UA in the game...
Minutemen are good but they get replaced so fast unless you rush them at the expense of Civil Service, Theology, and Universities.
Bombers come too late in the game and are more than strong enough without being a UU.

For the Celts I say change the UA to:
"Receive 10 Faith to found a Pantheon when you settle your first city. Additionally, receive Faith equal to 1/6th of the defensive strength of each enemy unit killed."
Leave Pictish Warriors alone (Faith gained equals 1/2 of the defensive strength).

For India, focus on the problem not the symptom. Do something with the happiness mechanic; G&K pretty much removed any realistic restrictions it imposed.

Byzantium: Why does Theodora have this UA to begin with?! :hmm: It fits the Byzantine Empire great, it fits her (and her contribution to history/said empire) about as well as a Lego fits a light socket... Beyond that, as previously stated, this UA would greatly benefit from some kind of Faith boost to ensure a religion.
 
'MURICAAAAA:
Arguably the worst UA in the game...
Minutemen are good but they get replaced so fast unless you rush them at the expense of Civil Service, Theology, and Universities.
Bombers come too late in the game and are more than strong enough without being a UU.

For the Celts I say change the UA to:
"Receive 10 Faith to found a Pantheon when you settle your first city. Additionally, receive Faith equal to 1/6th of the defensive strength of each enemy unit killed."
Leave Pictish Warriors alone (Faith gained equals 1/2 of the defensive strength).

For India, focus on the problem not the symptom. Do something with the happiness mechanic; G&K pretty much removed any realistic restrictions it imposed.

Byzantium: Why does Theodora have this UA to begin with?! :hmm: It fits the Byzantine Empire great, it fits her (and her contribution to history/said empire) about as well as a Lego fits a light socket... Beyond that, as previously stated, this UA would greatly benefit from some kind of Faith boost to ensure a religion.

theodora was a monophysite christian at a time when most everyone else was orthodox (i think). the fact that she had an "extra belief" about the nature of jesus kinda works with the UA imo
 
America's UA are extra sight and 75% less cost in hex acquisitions, right? I finally had the chance to play with those and they were awesome, among the best UA I had ever experienced. Never got a chance, however, to do much with Minutemen or even saw B-52s.
 
Uh, America's UA is great for warmongering. Minutemen are one of the best UUs, and the B17, while late, comes with two (!) free promotions, both of which are super important.

Greatest civ in the game? Nope, but still a good one.
 
America gets 50% less cost on hexes, which is still pretty useful. The +1 sight is quite the big advantage, more than I thought it would be when I started with them.

For India, there are plenty of directions they could go. My picks (without much thought to balance) are:

Population Growth: +15% growth and -15% unhappiness from population in all unoccupied cities

Simple, and rewards a tall game without the penalty from the current game, but maybe a little too basic for a UA.

or

Religious Tolerance: Once one citizen in a city is practicing a religion, at least one citizen in the city will always follow that religion. All religions with at least one follower in a city act as a majority religion in that city*. (AI always welcomes religion spread)

*This needs better wording; it means you enjoy all the follower benefits of every religion in a city as if it was the majority religion, and when you create a great prophet\missionary\inquisitor, you can choose the religion it follows from a list of every religion that as a citizen following it in the city you're creating it from.

This kind of UA would be really interesting, but also hard to balance, code, and explain to players.

or

Religions Tolerance 2: Can found more than one religion*.

*They would share the same pantheon; a great prophet would be needed for each religion (and another for each enhancement). The max number allowed in the game might go up by 1 for each India playing.

The problem is there's not much or a reason to have more than one religion unless it were combined with the other religious tolerance above, which would be hard to stop from being OP and overly complicated.

Not sure what they'll do with India but any change from the current one would be good to see.
 
Celts complaints are always exaggerated.

1. Even just assuming a 2 tile ring around a city, that is 17 pop. not including specialists before you are forced to worry about a single forest tile. A non-issue.

2. Comparing Celts to Maya/Ethiopia as a standard. Unless you are completely ignoring religion with the other 31 Civs in the game, this is another invalid argument. Yes, Maya/Ethiopia will get more raw faith throughout the entire game. But Celts will also get more faith than Russia, America, Ottomans, Polynesia, etc. etc. etc. These arguments always make it sound that Celts must either be the absolute best at faith generation else their UA is broke.

3. The belief that since it is possible to get +2 from 3 forest tiles, you must get the 3 forest tiles else the UA is completely worthless. Tons of UA's and Civs are situational. No/few strategic resources as Russia? No iron as Rome? No near naturals as Spain? Yes, some games you won't be able to fully exploit Celt's UA just like half the other Civs in the game.
 
Celts complaints are always exaggerated.

1. Even just assuming a 2 tile ring around a city, that is 17 pop. not including specialists before you are forced to worry about a single forest tile. A non-issue.

2. Comparing Celts to Maya/Ethiopia as a standard. Unless you are completely ignoring religion with the other 31 Civs in the game, this is another invalid argument. Yes, Maya/Ethiopia will get more raw faith throughout the entire game. But Celts will also get more faith than Russia, America, Ottomans, Polynesia, etc. etc. etc. These arguments always make it sound that Celts must either be the absolute best at faith generation else their UA is broke.

3. The belief that since it is possible to get +2 from 3 forest tiles, you must get the 3 forest tiles else the UA is completely worthless. Tons of UA's and Civs are situational. No/few strategic resources as Russia? No iron as Rome? No near naturals as Spain? Yes, some games you won't be able to fully exploit Celt's UA just like half the other Civs in the game.

It's still half a UA.

And comparing the Celts to the Mayans and Ethiopians makes it apparent just how pathetic the Celts are. The Mayans and Ethiopians can almost as easily found a pantheon, albeit a few turns after the Celts (in the case of the Ethiopians, maybe 2 or 3 turns after), but they also have other useful elements.

To summarize all the parts of the Celts:

UA that is restrictive on how it operates and is dismissed fairly early in the game, especially if you decide to convert those forests into something more productive. Check.

UU that replaces the Spearman, loses its effectiveness against cavalry, and loses one of its abilities on upgrade. Check.

UB that comes relatively late in the game and only differentiates itself from the building it replaces by heaping on happy faces, probably to offset your population's disappointment that your empire is going nowhere due to lack of focus. Check.

I mean, what? You do religious warmongering and raiding in the early game, ostensibly to spread your religion and territory, only to have the game promote you to build a relatively expensive cultural building in the middle of the game to pursue a cultural victory or something? This is despite the fact that you probably sacked a decent amount of cites, thereby bumping up your social policy costs. And if the Ceilidh Hall is there to offset the instability from having such a large empire, why the heck doesn't it replace something cheaper, like the amphitheater?

No, India is worse for sure, but the Celts are definitely not on the same level as the average civ. Sure they can be left alone, but they'd benefit from a rework more than most.
 
While I agree that the Celtic UA and UB could get a buff, their UU is quite good IMO! In higher levels, you can defend your territory and get faith from it or you can attack your neighbours, get faith from it, a bonus on their territory AND might pillage their tiles for health! It is a quite good unit! The faith bonus per kill might be lost on upgrade, true, but they also get the +50% against mounted back. Also, I don't see many horses on AI early rushes, so it doesn't come handy so often. I like the Pictish Warrior a lot and think it is an extremely good unit. Analysing it by saying it loses one of their bonuses on upgrade could be done to many UUs - Cataphracts, Dromons, Quinqueremes, Turtle Ships, Hoplites, Legions, Ballistas... I don't see a problem of the Spearman replacement thing. It has a good strenght value for their era, which goes to 13.2 on foreign lands. I like them a lot, even though the Celts as a whole don't please me at all.
 
And comparing the Celts to the Mayans and Ethiopians makes it apparent just how pathetic the Celts are.

Thanks for proving my point. Now replace Celts with any other Civ, and the statement is still true. Using Maya and Ethiopia, two of the strongest Civs in the game, as benchmarks is going to make nearly any other Civ look terrible.

Rome never gets complaints. Lets make a comparison:

Spoiler :
Celts essentially get a shrine and theater for free, allowing them to use hammers elsewhere. For Rome's UA to just match, not beat, but match the 240 free hammers the Celts get a Roman city needs to have built ~1,000 hammers worth of buildings.

Celts free shrine is up front giving them a significant edge in religion over the Romans.

Legion needs to detour over to iron working, hope for iron, and your reward is a unit that has one more combat strength over a regular pike. An upgraded Pictish Warrior has 19 combat strength outside of friendly territory, is on Civil Service (a needed tech for education and good growth bonus), spends no movement to pillage, and not reliant on iron.

Ballista replaces catapult, very short window of use.

Celts win, easy.


How about another comparison. Next up, Greeks.

Spoiler :
Hoplite, a 13 strength spear with a bonus to mounted which likely won't be needed. Upgrades into a regular pike. Pictish Warrior, a spear unit with no bonus to mounted, but has 13 combat strength outside of friendly territory, no pillage cost, faith on kill. Upgrades into one of the best medieval units in the game.

Greece UA is trash. Spies obsolete. Must drop gold or get lucky on a religious city-state to even stand a chance at competing with Celts UA and religion.

The moment medieval era hits, Greece has nothing going for it for the rest of the game.

Another win for Celts.



I could keep going, but fact is the Celts are a strong mid-tier Civ that is better than most. Easily in the top third best Civs; easily on par with Persia, France, Egypt. No, it isn't a Maya or Ethiopia, but very few Civs in the game can claim to be in the same tier as those Civs. Using them as a standard is flawed.
 
Yeah, I totally proved your point. /sarcasm off.

You're right, you could keep going and listing specific scenarios where the Celts might beat another civilization. +1 to speculation!

You could also have a scenario where Rome does get iron, marches into the Celtic lands, and proceeds to lay waste to those Pictish Warriors (who aren't getting that lovely foreign territory bonus anymore - oh, and they don't have any tiles to pillage). Those Ballistae are looking pretty sweet now that the Pictish Warriors are all gone. And if Caesar needs additional support, any Horsemen he has aren't going to have any problem tearing through Boudicca's nonexistent spearmen. No religion required. Fair comparison.

By the way, it's only 140 :c5production: for both a Shrine and Temple. And what figures are you pulling when Rome has to spend "~1000" :c5production: to build the exact same buildings?

It is absolutely fair and proper to compare the Celts to either the Mayans or Ethiopians when it comes down to faith production. Hell, I can compare any two civilizations I want to. It's all fair game.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Celts are strongly tied to faith production, but are relatively lackluster in the production compared to other civilizations that can effectively play the Celt's own game and still have something else up their sleeve for later on.

The Celts are overall a one trick pony and shouldn't be considered anywhere near a mid tier civilization. Once their faith farming ancient/classical era game is over, they pretty much languish. Ethiopia and the Mayans? Oh, hey, they got religions too, and not that many turns after the Celts (might even beat the Celts to an actual full-fledged religion). The difference? They've got something to look forward to besides Ceilidh Halls.

Sure, most UAs are conditional, circumstantial, or limited. The problem with the Celts is that their UA is all three. Needs several conditions to work optimally, is only useful for securing the first pantheon belief in the game (not as reliable for securing the first religion), and is limited to the point where where you're more interested in a lumber mill instead of a Druidic grove. It has potential, but it needs a tweak.

As it stands now? Easily in the bottom third of civilizations.
 
In the vast majority of cases, you're going to build the Shrine anyways because it's more faith... Getting the first Pantheon and then not getting a religion completely wastes the Celtic UA and partially wastes the UU. Moving on, calling the Ceilidh Hall a free Theatre is crazy talk. Again, you're almost always going to build the Theatre anyways; plus, with Rome (or the Celts, Ceilidh Hall withstanding) I probably wouldn't even build Amphitheatres in most cities much less an Opera House. The maintenance on those buildings is a big drain.

And then... When you consider over the course of a 350 to 400 turn game (with Rome), my first eight(ish) cities are probably going to put out in excess of 2000 hammers a piece (average, before the bonus, or Golden Ages, etc.)

All and all the effective bonus for the Celts falls way flat of even Rome (a mid-tier civ) and I didn't even consider situationals like not every city you found with the Celts is even going to qualify for the bonus faith... It's seriously not even 1/3rd of what you're giving it credit for.

The Pictish Warrior is pretty good. Hell, it almost stacks up to Immortals (if it weren't for the Golden Age Bonus synergizing with Immortals).

The Ceilidh Hall is just plain out of place for this civ. It comes a lot later than needed and is pushing the player towards Culture on a civ that gets no bonuses towards Culture and whose opening gameplay strategy more or less contradicts the current Cultural Victory.
 
I don't understand the dislike of the Celtic UA. For having one forest next to you, you basically get a free shrine in your city. Having three forests is a nice bonus, but it's just that, a bonus.

I always have great fun settling next to forests, and sending my Pictish warriors out to hunt barbarians. It produces faith at a good rate, and encourages me to build a large army early in the game.

You can compare them to other religious civs, but having the bonus of basically being guaranteed the first pantheon is worth more than I think other people think it is. I think people are asking a lot more from the Celts than they should be. Just because it hands you a pantheon, doesn't mean it has to hand you a religion.
 
By the way, it's only 140 :c5production: for both a Shrine and Temple. And what figures are you pulling when Rome has to spend "~1000" :c5production: to build the exact same buildings?

Shrine and theater. Temple is only if the Celts manage to snag a 3 forest tile city spot, which as been discussed and I don't disagree with, is not going to happen often.

Rome's UA is all about saving hammers in satellite cities. It reduces cost of buildings by 25%, so a shrine would take 30 hammers instead of 40, a bonus of 10 free hammers. To get to the amount of hammers a shrine (40) and theater (200) you need to make a heavy investment up front. Rome's UA isn't going to top that until the second half of the game. Further, this isn't even mentioning that the Celts can and likely will double up on those buildings eventually and although losing the free hammers, get double the bonuses.

Hell, I can compare any two civilizations I want to. It's all fair game.

Of course you can. And how are those other comparisons shaping up against Maya or Ethiopia?

The Celts are overall a one trick pony and shouldn't be considered anywhere near a mid tier civilization. Once their faith farming ancient/classical era game is over, they pretty much languish. Ethiopia and the Mayans? Oh, hey, they got religions too, and not that many turns after the Celts (might even beat the Celts to an actual full-fledged religion). The difference? They've got something to look forward to besides Ceilidh Halls.

1. Their one-trick extends into Medieval. You know, the portion of the game that many players feel they've already won? Upgrades Picts are one of the best medieval units available, and Ceilidh Hall allows for the Celts to keep pushing that top half of the tech tree without any drawbacks, just like their UU. Can ignore iron working, long swords, and theaters, yet still keep units roughly equivalent in strength and don't miss out on the 3 happiness.

2. Now start counting up all the other one-trick ponies in the game...

Easily in the bottom third of civilizations.

That bottom third of yours seems disproportionately skewed. You are honestly ranking America, Byzantium, Carthage, Denmark, Germany, Greece, India, Iroquois, Japan, Netherlands, Ottomans, Polynesia, Rome, Russia, Songhai, Spain, and Sweden as absolutely better than Celts? That is half right there, and a number of others beyond that which would be up for argument.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing how you choose to rank the Civs, but nothing you've posted thus far is exclusive to the Celts and apply to over half the other Civs available in the game.

Which has always been my basis for defending the Celts. The arguments for say, India, I listen to and acknowledge because people pose actual arguments. Everything behind the Celts complaints are either a direct comparison to two of the strongest Civs in the game, or specifically ignore the Civ as a whole and focus on small stats within a vaccuum that is never applicable in-game. These aren't arguments of Celts being weak; these are complaints that Celts are not as overpowered as Maya/Ethiopia.
 
In the vast majority of cases, you're going to build the Shrine anyways because it's more faith...

Indeed. As mentioned in my recent reply, you will be doubling up eventually, but the ability to get the bonuses while focusing hammers elsewhere is significant. And yes, the theater is a worthy comparison. That maintenance you are talking about? Essentially cut in half by having two buildings in one.

And then... When you consider over the course of a 350 to 400 turn game (with Rome),

Of course. I never claimed Rome's UA wouldn't eventually surpass. Of course if you try and make that Ceilidh Hall comes too late in the game to matter, then one could just throw out those later hammers on Rome as well, for the same reasoning.

The Ceilidh Hall is just plain out of place for this civ. It comes a lot later than needed and is pushing the player towards Culture on a civ that gets no bonuses towards Culture and whose opening gameplay strategy more or less contradicts the current Cultural Victory.

Then... don't play them as a generic culture victory Civ? I find America doesn't fare too well for cultural victories as well...
 
Ancien Régime
+2 Culture per turn from Cities before discovering Steam Power.
Napoleon

As soon as you discover Steam Power your ability goes away, which is entirely based off of how many cities you have, and unless your lucky with rapid expansion on a continent you have all to your self, your not going to get a whole lot of use out of it.

The Long Count
After researching Theology, receive a bonus Great Person at the end of every Maya Long Count calendar cycle (every 394 years). Each bonus person can only be chosen once.
Pacal

You get a single great person for studying theology, and another one if you make it to 394 turns, again completely useless and mine as well not even be there.

Mongol TerrorCombat
Strength +30% when fighting City-State units or attacking a City-State itself. All mounted units have +1 Movement.
Genghis Khan

The city state one is okay, but it seems (to me at least) it's far more valuable to keep city states around as opposed to attacking them, and once more we have another bonus that goes away as soon as you use it up. It's great for the initial part of the game, but once you reach any thing beyond mounted units it's gone.

I understand the historic reasoning behind all of these, but it still needs to be changed.
 
Ancien Régime
+2 Culture per turn from Cities before discovering Steam Power.
Napoleon

As soon as you discover Steam Power your ability goes away, which is entirely based off of how many cities you have, and unless your lucky with rapid expansion on a continent you have all to your self, your not going to get a whole lot of use out of it.

The Long Count
After researching Theology, receive a bonus Great Person at the end of every Maya Long Count calendar cycle (every 394 years). Each bonus person can only be chosen once.
Pacal

You get a single great person for studying theology, and another one if you make it to 394 turns, again completely useless and mine as well not even be there.

Mongol TerrorCombat
Strength +30% when fighting City-State units or attacking a City-State itself. All mounted units have +1 Movement.
Genghis Khan

The city state one is okay, but it seems (to me at least) it's far more valuable to keep city states around as opposed to attacking them, and once more we have another bonus that goes away as soon as you use it up. It's great for the initial part of the game, but once you reach any thing beyond mounted units it's gone.

I understand the historic reasoning behind all of these, but it still needs to be changed.

You're completely misunderstanding The Long Count. It's every 394 years, not turns. That comes out to something like 8 great people if you finish Theology at turn 70 and 9 great people if you finish at turn 60.
 
Back
Top Bottom