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

[Tyrvos]

My wants:


Carthage's UA is ridiculous. I have no problem with crossing mountains, but free harbors from turn 1 for any coastal city is killer, even in some situations on Pangea. Maybe change the UA to +3 and +2 per harbor, which would still be a nice bonus, but would not be so utterly powerful on Marathon games. On Marathon, getting a Harbor practically hundreds of turns early is amazing, but a bit much.

I could be biased, but I think it's fair just because their other bonuses are gone so quickly. It's something they just get to keep throughout the game that helps encourage settling on coasts. I think the fact it's inland should account for something.

 

[Tyrvos]

It isn't hate, nor not understanding how awesome polders are. Rather they have no start bias and they will often roll games where there is no marsh/floodplains or coast. Getting a start with no coast, no marsh/flood, and you are left with a weaker version of Arabia's UA and nothing else.

Messix I think it was had a good idea that it would be interesting if you could "reclaim" coastal tiles as polders. Give them a start bias for coast, and able to turn coastal tiles into polders. The fun of playing that Civ would increase significantly.

I don't think the Dutch are terrible but as it is now I'd rather play Spain as far as start gambles go. At least Spain is guaranteed to get 100 gold and 2 smilies eventually.

They get a grassland bias, and whenever i play I start out in foodplains or grassland near a river (which have a higher chance of marsh) and I also end up in jungles (which have marsh often too). Your capital may not always be coastal, but you have time to set up a coastal city with them.

Their UA isn't the same as how the Bazaar works. Granted, double luxury is amazing, no argument there. However, the amount of trade that UA allows for even at the beginning makes up for it, in my opinion. The towns that get the most polders for me are the ones I have to explore for, which is fine since it allows those cities to catch up so that's a plus.

It's completely fine if you prefer Spain over them. I would like to mention though, that with that UA you are getting 240 (or 270 in epic) for each trade or 2 bonus happiness if you trade your last resource of that type 1-for-1. Factor in that this is occurring throughout the game and that it isn't chance oriented, and I'd say that easily compares to Spain's UA.

I think any improvement to the Dutch could put them over the top, but that's just me.

 

[Matthew.]

I don't find them weak, just unreliable--hence the comparison to Spain. Some games you feel like a god, others you are wondering whether your Civ came with any bonuses at all.

Trading luxury for luxury is good later on, but not sure why people talk up the luxury for gold. You still lose two smilies so it is never free, like Arabia's. The number of times that come up where selling a luxury as Dutch would keep me just above the red are so few that I don't even count it as a bonus.

While it would be fun to get trade route bonuses as Dutch in BWN, I don't think they need to be changed in anyway. Although at the same time I don't think they are powerful that any additional buff would throw them into the extremes. In another thread I mentioned England as a comparison. England's vanilla UA is good, but not always useful depending on the map. Getting an additional spy helped round out the Civ to make it a bit more reliable. I think Dutch are in a similar situation. On the right map they really shine, but it would be nice to get some kind of change to make them a little more reliable than they currently are.

 

[Tyrvos]

I don't find them weak, just unreliable--hence the comparison to Spain. Some games you feel like a god, others you are wondering whether your Civ came with any bonuses at all.

Trading luxury for luxury is good later on, but not sure why people talk up the luxury for gold. You still lose two smilies so it is never free, like Arabia's. The number of times that come up where selling a luxury as Dutch would keep me just above the red are so few that I don't even count it as a bonus.

While it would be fun to get trade route bonuses as Dutch in BWN, I don't think they need to be changed in anyway. Although at the same time I don't think they are powerful that any additional buff would throw them into the extremes. In another thread I mentioned England as a comparison. England's vanilla UA is good, but not always useful depending on the map. Getting an additional spy helped round out the Civ to make it a bit more reliable. I think Dutch are in a similar situation. On the right map they really shine, but it would be nice to get some kind of change to make them a little more reliable than they currently are.

As the Dutch, I'm selling every luxury I get as soon as possible, whether it's instant gold, gpt, or for 2 bonus happiness. While in a Carthage game I'm in right now, I have 8 single luxuries I can't trade away. If I was that Dutch, I could be swimming in gold through 8 more trades or possibly getting 16+happiness while improving diplomatic relations. The bonus it has over the Bazaar, although the bazaar is just ridiculous overall, is that I can use the UA earlier and as soon as you add a luxury to my network.

The only thing I find situational is the polder, but I tend to get enough through expansion so I've never been too worried with it.

If there was a change, I think it would deal with their naval trade caravans (either "cargo space", cheapness, or ability to defend themselves) based on the Fluyt.

I always get bored with the English, I don't get why. But I understand what you are saying, I don't want you to think I'm devaluing your valid points. I just feel like people sometimes brush over the Dutch UA too quickly.

 

[Matthew.]

But I understand what you are saying, I don't want you to think I'm devaluing your valid points. I just feel like people sometimes brush over the Dutch UA too quickly.

Nah it's cool. The main reason I would comment or bring up an argument is because I want to be proven wrong. As long as valid counter-points are brought up, I am happy.

Truthfully, I've only played around 4 or 5 games as the Dutch, which is certainly a low enough number where RNG could have screwed me over. Perhaps polders are more common than I'm giving credit.

And I don't particularly mind not having the coastal bias (I think I've read that they try not to give biases when possible, else it could screw over those who actually need them? Given the choice between Carthage/Byzantium or Dutch getting the coast, I'd rather they have it since their UU's come so early).

I'm still not seeing the benefit of the gold trades though. In the early game I am so strapped on happiness as is, that an extra two isn't going to be a game changer. I suppose it can help "bridge the gap" in between getting colosseums up and the like, but very minor boost in the big picture. No complaints for luxuries though, +2/3 happiness extra is an awesome deal.

Like I said, I don't think they need a change, but something like +1 gold on naval trade routes would be something to help round out the Civ. Luxury for luxury is nice, but not reliable (AI won't give up their last copy, so they need two). Something like +1 gold on naval routes would ensure you get something reliable, and any polders/luxuries gained beyond that is left up to chance.

 

[Tyrvos]

Nah it's cool. The main reason I would comment or bring up an argument is because I want to be proven wrong. As long as valid counter-points are brought up, I am happy.

Truthfully, I've only played around 4 or 5 games as the Dutch, which is certainly a low enough number where RNG could have screwed me over. Perhaps polders are more common than I'm giving credit.

And I don't particularly mind not having the coastal bias (I think I've read that they try not to give biases when possible, else it could screw over those who actually need them? Given the choice between Carthage/Byzantium or Dutch getting the coast, I'd rather they have it since their UU's come so early).

I'm still not seeing the benefit of the gold trades though. In the early game I am so strapped on happiness as is, that an extra two isn't going to be a game changer. I suppose it can help "bridge the gap" in between getting colosseums up and the like, but very minor boost in the big picture. No complaints for luxuries though, +2/3 happiness extra is an awesome deal.

Like I said, I don't think they need a change, but something like +1 gold on naval trade routes would be something to help round out the Civ. Luxury for luxury is nice, but not reliable (AI won't give up their last copy, so they need two). Something like +1 gold on naval routes would ensure you get something reliable, and any polders/luxuries gained beyond that is left up to chance.

I understand where you are coming from. I felt the same way until I started selling luxuries for gold more with them. It really does add up. I play them probably every 3ish games and I really miss being able to trade that last resource. I get so used to the extra money and happiness that I'll expand too fast with other teams and I'll get confused when I'm almost bankrupt.

And AI won't give their last resource, but you are much more likely to have at least 1 resource they don't have while they have 2 of a resource you don't have than you both having 2 of a resource the other doesn't have. So you really do end up trading a lot more than you would with most teams. You just have to play expansive somewhat for a real pay off.

That improvement you mentioned doesn't even sound like it'd be too bad of a bonus. I mean trust me, they're my favorite team, so of course I'd like them buffed. I just always found them balanced and fun, so I'm just hesitant to adjust them. Also, keep in mind they're a great mid-late game team, so there early game may seem lacking compared to other civs because their focus isn't there.

 

[Securion]

America should obviously have some sort of Culture bonus.
China feels a bit weird as a "warmonger" civ... I feel a growth bonus would be more fitting.
Ottomans "Barbary Corsairs" should be more historically correct, like taking slaves (pop) from coastal cities or something.
England should have some sort of trade bonus. (extra sea trade route?)
Spain should have a fleet size bonus (Spanish Armada anyone?). Maybe get the current Ottoman 1/3 fleet maintenance bonus?
Germany should have a +50% bonus to great engineers.

My 2 cents.

 

[Decker87]

Personally, I would like to see Montezuma's UA changed. I find that extra culture is not all that great for a warmongering civ. Just my two cents.

I also feel like jungle tiles kind of suck. How is a warmongering civ supposed to produce anything without production tiles?

 

[BrotherInJah]

Nah it's cool. The main reason I would comment or bring up an argument is because I want to be proven wrong. As long as valid counter-points are brought up, I am happy.

Truthfully, I've only played around 4 or 5 games as the Dutch, which is certainly a low enough number where RNG could have screwed me over. Perhaps polders are more common than I'm giving credit.

And I don't particularly mind not having the coastal bias (I think I've read that they try not to give biases when possible, else it could screw over those who actually need them? Given the choice between Carthage/Byzantium or Dutch getting the coast, I'd rather they have it since their UU's come so early).

I'm still not seeing the benefit of the gold trades though. In the early game I am so strapped on happiness as is, that an extra two isn't going to be a game changer. I suppose it can help "bridge the gap" in between getting colosseums up and the like, but very minor boost in the big picture. No complaints for luxuries though, +2/3 happiness extra is an awesome deal.

Like I said, I don't think they need a change, but something like +1 gold on naval trade routes would be something to help round out the Civ. Luxury for luxury is nice, but not reliable (AI won't give up their last copy, so they need two). Something like +1 gold on naval routes would ensure you get something reliable, and any polders/luxuries gained beyond that is left up to chance.

Dutch UA saved me from Huns last game, when they were knocking to my doors with rams. Rush buying with selling every lux and still get +2 for each. This UA is for unpredictable events like that one i had.

Personally, I would like to see Montezuma's UA changed. I find that extra culture is not all that great for a warmongering civ. Just my two cents.

I also feel like jungle tiles kind of suck. How is a warmongering civ supposed to produce anything without production tiles?

When warmongering with Aztec the policy cost rise and their UA can fill it quicker than any other warmonger

 

[Maledict]

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.

 

[IkM]

Mongolia's UA to +30% when attacking cities.

 

[QuipCloud]

I don't see why America should be considered a cultural civ, or at least why it should be above any others. I'm not saying America doesn't have it's own beautiful art, history and culture but not more so than say Germany, England or China - non of which are Cultural Civs (although the AI always seems to try to play England as one). There has to be a civ to suit every niche and game mechanic - America has a pretty good expansion UA ATM.

Khagan Bek - Mongolia's trait is bad (city states are not worth attacking 90% of the time because of the diplomatic fall out) but a 30% bonus is too much. Instead, it should be something to encourage a wide civilisation rather than a tall one. How about -2 from number of international trade routes, + number of cities +2 is added to ? I think this would be good. It would encourage the new mechanics.

 

[IkM]

Yes, that would be nice too.

anyway, Mongolia's UA really sucks. also, it says +1 for every cavalry units and Keshik have 5 and in total Keshik must have 6 but they still have 5.

 

[turingmachine]

Yes, that would be nice too.

anyway, Mongolia's UA really sucks. also, it says +1 for every cavalry units and Keshik have 5 and in total Keshik must have 6 but they still have 5.

Keshiks are Archery Units, the UA only gives to Mounted Units. It's somewhat counter-intuitive as, yes, they are riding horses, but it's talking about the unit's Unit Combat which you can check in their civlopedia entry.

 

[turingmachine]

It isn't hate, nor not understanding how awesome polders are. Rather they have no start bias and they will often roll games where there is no marsh/floodplains or coast. Getting a start with no coast, no marsh/flood, and you are left with a weaker version of Arabia's UA and nothing else.

Start biases are primarily only to help early game uniques to prevent random chance from not letting you use one at all.

Polders come mid to late game. You don't need a start bias for later uniques as your supposed to purposufelly explore and settle/comnquer land that will support the Polder.

But on top of all this, they still have a grass bias which IS the polder/marsh bias. There's no individual marsh bias because it's considered part of the grass bias.

 

[IkM]

Keshiks are Archery Units, the UA only gives to Mounted Units. It's somewhat counter-intuitive as, yes, they are riding horses, but it's talking about the unit's Unit Combat which you can check in their civlopedia entry.

oh, didn't know that. thank you my friend, for clarify

 

[Arachnofiend]

I don't see why America should be considered a cultural civ, or at least why it should be above any others. I'm not saying America doesn't have it's own beautiful art, history and culture but not more so than say Germany, England or China - non of which are Cultural Civs (although the AI always seems to try to play England as one). There has to be a civ to suit every niche and game mechanic - America has a pretty good expansion UA ATM.

Coca-colonization is the difference. When we're talking about culture we're not just talking about the smarmy high brow junk that people indulge in while twirling their mustaches; we're talking about how you can find a McDonald's in virtually every metropolitan area in the world, we're talking about how, even in nations that pride themselves in being culturally exclusive and shutting out the influence of the Americans, modern pop music is generally descended from jazz, rock, or house.

America's mark on history is culturally conquering the world in the 20th century and it is really strange that their representation in Civ doesn't show that off.

 

[Fummy]

America should obviously have some sort of Culture bonus.

You serious? "obviously"? When you think "america" does "culture" come to mind?
I mean, IMO American culture is just rehashed European culture.
It's far more appropriate as a military/technology civ. I think the current exploration bonus is fine, it helps quite a bit in establishing a large empire, which is generally required for a military or tech victory.

[EDIT] What Arachnofiend above is describing sounds exactly like the new "tourism" mechanic, whereby you impose your culture on other civs around the globe. So to be honest, maybe america should have some sort of Tourism bonus or something, but I don't think culture is the same.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Tourism is apparently the method for the new culture victory which is why I've been advocating a revamped America. It makes a lot of sense for them to be a strong culture civ, they're the only ones in history to win that way.

 

[Maledict]

Tourism is apparently the method for the new culture victory which is why I've been advocating a revamped America. It makes a lot of sense for them to be a strong culture civ, they're the only ones in history to win that way.

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.