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

[Buccaneer]

The point is not to give the civs historical traits but instead to provide variety and game balance. In other words, there is a finite number of cultural bonuses (say, 10) - they just doled those out to the ones that didn't have a strong trait in other areas (and vice-versa). You can make an argument for any civ to be given a cultural/military/economical/etc. trait(s) but for game balance, they gave those equally, balance-wise. The blue/green/yellow ones got X, the red/pink/silver ones got Y, etc.

 

[Maledict]

I'm fine with sharing out the traits - as you say, for some countries you can argue they should be strong in all areas. I was quibbling with the historical concept that America was the only nation that has in some way 'won' through culture.

Personally think making the USA more culture based would be a good idea - there are very few culture based civs and it would make them more appealing than their current traits which are useful but never really give a strong feel to the civ.

 

[HitchSlap666]

Personally I always thought America needed a bonus more like: chance of generating a great person for each city captured (or war won). This would be open to balance of course (not sure on exactly what percent chance would be fair) but it also fits very nicely with history.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Um, no. You can easily argue a multiple of civs have 'won' using culture - France's impact on the world is massive for example. The same for the UK which exported parliamentary democracy across the globe. Greece and Rome similarly amongst other nations.

It's pretty tricky actually because most nations that won 'culturally' also won economically / militarily at the same time.

America is unique in that they exerted influence over civilizations that did not want it and were not occupied. As influential as the Romans were their ideas only extended as far as the Legions were able to enforce them. The story with America is usually the reverse: citizens unassociated with the government come into a country and impose American values on the people already living there. It's only after America has a stranglehold on the new puppet that armed forces might come in to "ensure stability and the security of our American interests". Guatemala is a prime example of this. Hawaii too if you'd like something that got officially annexed.

My idea to represent this prior to the unveiling of BNW was a Great Merchant replacement that gave you a raw culture boost in addition to the influence/gold boost that you get with trade missions but with the new mechanics I agree with Fummy that the tourism mechanic is a prime way to represent what America does to other nations.

 

[Stonecutter9]

Personally I always thought America needed a bonus more like: chance of generating a great person for each city captured (or war won). This would be open to balance of course (not sure on exactly what percent chance would be fair) but it also fits very nicely with history.

How does the computer determine 'victory' in this case?

 

[Maledict]

America is unique in that they exerted influence over civilizations that did not want it and were not occupied. As influential as the Romans were their ideas only extended as far as the Legions were able to enforce them. The story with America is usually the reverse: citizens unassociated with the government come into a country and impose American values on the people already living there. It's only after America has a stranglehold on the new puppet that armed forces might come in to "ensure stability and the security of our American interests". Guatemala is a prime example of this. Hawaii too if you'd like something that got officially annexed.

Again, I'm really sorry but this simply isn't true at all. Whichever country has been the dominant world power at the time exerts a massive cultural pull on the rest of the world. It's more visible now due to increased travel speeds and flow of information, but you can go back hundreds of years and see the same effect - be it France, Britain, Italy etc. when once country massively dominates the world stage (like the USA does now) the rest of the world bends to that shape whether it likes it or not.

This isn't to demean the USA in any way - it absolutely is the culturally,dominant nation in existance today. It's just that this isn't the first time nations have had this effect on the world. Unfortunately for some reason people are taught that this is unique to the USA when history is littered with examples that show otherwise.

 

[Heart Break Kid]

It would be really nice if we could have *one* modern civ that's good at science. Assyria looks to be another ancient era science civ along with Maya and Babylon. I always find it slightly odd that the best civs at research in the game are those that haven't existed for hundreds or thousands of years and you would be hard pressed to identify some of them as beacons of scientific progress. Whereas (for example) the scientific revolution that happened in England during the industrial revolution that was probably the biggest single leap forward in science since we invented writing is completely ignored.

Korea?

 

[Genghis.Khan]

Germany

 

[bcaiko]

This topic has cropped up repeatedly, so I'll reiterate what I've said before.

If Gods & Kings is any indication, there will be almost no changes to existing Unique Abilities. Gods and Kings only made minor changes to Civs whose abilities were effected(/destroyed) by the mechanics changes. To that extent, the Dutch may get a minor rework because of potential changes to how the luxuries trade works. France might get some sort of tourism mechanic addition (a la how England got a spy in G&K), but I doubt it. I understand what concerns folks have about the Celts, but I feel those folks undervalue the choice of the first pantheon toward generating additional faith and also seem to forget that the Pictish Warrior also has a bonus attacking in foreign lands bonus that it keeps as it upgrades (though it should also keep the faith per kill, IMHO...but that's an issue with the UU and not the UA).

The only UA that truly needs a minor rework is India. Some of the suggestions coming from this thread are not plausible however. No Civ has ever had the theme of their UA changed, retitled, or completely thrown out. India's UA is population growth and that's what it's going to be. A plausible change, perhaps, may be that the negative reinforcement mechanism in the UA is replaced with a positive one. I.e., India could get a bonus pool of happiness that depletes every time they found an additional city. This would encourage the player to play tall, but not cripple them if they decide to do otherwise.

TL;DR: The UAs are fine. Some mechanics related things might be coming, but don't expect too much. India could use a minor buff.

Basically India is the only civ 100% of us agree needs fixing.

Anything else and at least one person around here will respond with "I disagree, they are actually good because ______".

That's because the Civs are remarkably well balanced at this point. Another reason the Civs will go mostly untouched. Some are a little better than others, but they're all viable. No Civ is godlike and no Civ absolutely blows. (Though many of us do agree that India should get a minor buff.)

 

[IkM]

India's UA is the best for OCC. but, when they're controlling by ai their UA becoming disadvantage.

 

[Red Pearl]

Egypt has a better UA then India for OCC. I just wish they would make India like it was before the patch that broke them. Their UA should give +2 unhappiness to each city instead of double.

 

[djm_jm]

No doubt the English, his trait is poor.

 

[Avatan]

India's UA is the best for OCC. but, when they're controlling by ai their UA becoming disadvantage.

I don't like India for OCC because happiness is never an issue in this case.
I use to not like them until I played wide and tall with them. The start is rough, but as soon as cities reach nine or so they become effectively generating happiness comparatively to not playing India. If allows you to annex more easily really big capitals in a domination for example.

The UA is mostly very underestimated, but maybe +1 or +2 food per city would fit nicely too.

 

[seasnake]

A slight decrease to India's penalty for founding new cities is about all that's necessary. In general their ability works very well in the late game.

 

[steveg700]

Personally I always thought America needed a bonus more like: chance of generating a great person for each city captured (or war won). This would be open to balance of course (not sure on exactly what percent chance would be fair) but it also fits very nicely with history.

How does earning great persons for conquering cities reflect America? Heck, the U.S. had a nice boom of generating GP's during its pre-WW era of isolationism.

 

[QuipCloud]

There is a strong difference between 'Globalisation' and 'Culture' that needs to be noted here. Just because some American companies have been very influential does not mean that their culture is becoming increasingly dominant. Coca-Cola, Starbucks and any other similar brand widely seen in the rest of the world is not American culture permeating other societies, it's successful American business. There is a stronger case with American Music and Film being widely listened or watched in other nations, true, but Culture is more than what you might watch in a cinema once ever four months or what you might passively listen to in the car on the way to work. Culture is part of national identity and involves language, literature, the attitudes of society - a whole host of other things. Again, I'm not suggesting America ISN'T cultured, I'm just saying it's no more cultured in this regard then South Korea, the UK, Russia or Brazil is. If anything, Rome and Greece are THE most Cultural civilizations regarding the effect on Art, Architecture and Society they have had on the entire Western World. And yet they aren't. As such, I think America's unique and rather good trait should remain (perhaps a change to the units, the B17 is rather late, but that's another matter).

Fact of the matter is, I think this is beginning to drift away from the topic. Bcaiko - yes - certainly the changes were only small but they still were there. And clearly people believe, myself included, there are changes that should be made to some of the current UAs we have, especially with the new mechanics that are going to downright break some of the existing ones (France for example will need to be looked at, no?) Of course this discussion will have very little effect on the developers (what forum threads do?) and most of our guesses will probably be wrong but it doesn't mean we can't hypothesis what might potentially change. It's certainly a way to burn time waiting for BNW!

 

[Matthew.]

A slight decrease to India's penalty for founding new cities is about all that's necessary. In general their ability works very well in the late game.

I think a simple bonus to growth would work. You want to punish me for settling a new city? Fine, but reward me by having that city grow faster than any other Civ. It would fit the real-life reference to India's population, too.

That is likely how the UA was intended to play out, but with no bonus to growth you don't see the effects until late game, where the outcome of the game has already been decided. A bonus to growth would shorten that gap in between "punishment for settling" and "hey, it is finally paying off and I have massive cities with less happiness issues".

 

[Bobert13]

I think a simple bonus to growth would work. You want to punish me for settling a new city? Fine, but reward me by having that city grow faster than any other Civ. It would fit the real-life reference to India's population, too.

That is likely how the UA was intended to play out, but with no bonus to growth you don't see the effects until late game, where the outcome of the game has already been decided. A bonus to growth would shorten that gap in between "punishment for settling" and "hey, it is finally paying off and I have massive cities with less happiness issues".

This really wouldn't change a thing. India is bad because they can't settle cities early. G&K's changes to happiness (increasing the unhappiness of cities from 2 to 3 and you can no longer "export" happiness) really nerfed them hard. Even if you gave them a growth bonus, they'd just hit the brick wall before Medieval that much sooner. To get them back to competitive without overhauling the UA, they'd just need to tone down the penalty to say 4 happiness (the pre-G&K value) instead of 6.

Once you hit Theatre's and such, with a decent happiness-focused religion, India takes off; however that's all to late as most of the really great city locations are taken and Rome/France/Ethiopia/Monty/*insert ICS civ here* are probably up to 7 or 8 cities already and they're getting ready to start plopping cities down again.

 

[Matthew.]

It would depend on how large of a growth bonus. A high pop. city is ridiculously strong, which is why something like 4 city Tradition consistently outperforms Hiawatha's ICS.

Another way to word it is this: Unhappiness is the cap to population growth. India's current UA gives a bonus to that cap, but nothing to the growth rate, which means you are getting punished (3 unhappiness) for a bonus that isn't being used (growth rate is the same so you are not "filling up" that larger population cap).

With a bonus to growth you would get to actually use the UA. Yes, expansion would be slower, but as long as the population is still there (thrown on top of cities rather than spread out), it would be enough.

Funny, too, because when I wrote the above post I actually thought it would be too powerful. The game expects you to have a certain amount of gold and hammers at any given point in the tech tree, and by having access to more of it than you should it means you would be able to create wonders in the same time it takes other Civs to build regular combat units, etc.

 

[Bobert13]

You can't even get 4 cities out with India, without limiting growth drastically, basically playing them rex even though they can't rex anymore. 4 of their cities with just 2 pop a piece is 28 unhappiness. That's 5 Luxuries to break even (on King or higher). Colesseums do come early if your really rush them so that puts you to plus 8 (with 2 pop cities, TWO). While a growth bonus could go a long way once you hit Theatre's, until then it's not going to change a thing.

As stated previously in this thread, I personally feel they need to address the happiness system in general and then come back and revisit India's UA. However, without doing so, a growth bonus isn't going to do a thing for India's early game, which is where they get obliterated. It will improve their mid and late game where they're still very viable without a growth bonus.