What to do with the Huns?

The only thing I worry about with the Huns is that nearly all their bonuses affect the early game. They'll become somewhat stale by the modern age. Why doesn't Civ V introduce new trait choices throughout the ages (like Civ Rev) or give permanent game traits that are shared among certain civs? (i.e. US can choose Industrial, Expansionist or Scientific, Egypt Cultural, etc)

That would reduce variety not increase it. There are plenty of Civs designed to have benefits throughout the game. In fact, it's quite rare to find one entirely focused on one era. Polynesia comes close but Moai statues exist throughout. By having the Huns as a short lit fuse that either explodes or burns out, they are unique in the game (and, yes, they can burn cities throughout, but that's only an ok ability).
 
Has it been said explicitly they get Animal Husbandry? All I heard was they get horses, but that doesn't mean animal husbandry
It was mentioned by somebody who was on the PAX, he also said some other stuff that was confirmed in the interview so I'd expect AH to be right.
And besides, AH does reveal horses.

=====
But the Huns are a terrifying new civ, that's for sure.
You really don't want to start next to them.

What would be good counter strategies? Lots of archer & spearmen? Straight beeline to iron, and hoping you'll get there in time?
 
There'll be a weakness to the Battering ram. As for horses, Spearman.

I'm just betting that the weakness to battering rams will be ponies; +50% against cities -50% against ponies.

Or something like that
 
I'm hoping that the battering ram will be good against early cities, as stated, but completely terrible in open field combat against any unit. I can't actually imagine how you'd use a battering ram in any battle other than a siege???
 
The Huns sound really exciting. Though am I the only one ever so slightly disappointed that the 'they can't build Settlers and have to conquer cities to expand' idea didn't pan out? OK, so it would probably have turned a lot of players off them and with the useless combat AI they would have been walkovers to play against in single player games, but it wouldn't exactly have been difficult to implement. Plus it would have felt more authentic than the Huns founding random Siamese and English cities...
 
That would reduce variety not increase it. There are plenty of Civs designed to have benefits throughout the game. In fact, it's quite rare to find one entirely focused on one era. Polynesia comes close but Moai statues exist throughout. By having the Huns as a short lit fuse that either explodes or burns out, they are unique in the game (and, yes, they can burn cities throughout, but that's only an ok ability).

If the promotion of the Battering ram carries on to upgrades, it would provide something extra later on. And the faster razing is only useful in the modern era.
 
The Huns sound really exciting. Though am I the only one ever so slightly disappointed that the 'they can't build Settlers and have to conquer cities to expand' idea didn't pan out?

Well, I promised not to be too disappointed when learning about the *real* hunnic uniques. And I'm not!

Nevertheless, representing a nomadic tribe with temporary encampments would have been such a big chance for an alternate and probably fun gameplay, too. Anyway, I was *sure*, Firaxis would choose a more "traditional" solution.
 
And the faster razing is only useful in the modern era.

How do you figure? :dubious: I often raze cities in the ancient and classical eras when happiness is a significant problem and yet I want to conquer nearby cities.
 
Well, I promised not to be too disappointed when learning about the *real* hunnic uniques. And I'm not!

Nevertheless, representing a nomadic tribe with temporary encampments would have been such a big chance for an alternate and probably fun gameplay, too. Anyway, I was *sure*, Firaxis would choose a more "traditional" solution.

Wow, that idea would have been awesome.

Don't get me wrong; I'm still really looking forward to playing as them. But I do feel like an opportunity has been missed here...
 
How do you figure? :dubious: I often raze cities in the ancient and classical eras when happiness is a significant problem and yet I want to conquer nearby cities.

As Deggial says: cities are smaller. But also, the speed of conquest is slower in the beginning, and the difference in strength tend to be smaller (if you are playing on a competitive difficulty. Sure, it can help in the beginning too, but the effect is bigger later on.
 
But the Huns are a terrifying new civ, that's for sure.
You really don't want to start next to them.

What would be good counter strategies? Lots of archer & spearmen? Straight beeline to iron, and hoping you'll get there in time?

Convert them to your religion ASAP and point them in the direction of the nearest infidel??:c5razing::c5razing:
 
an easy counter to the huns is starting in advanced era

but no, seriously, spears against horses. and battering rams most likely won't be ranged, so i'd go with archers.
 
LOL at the grunting idea, it would make Attila seems very uncivilized and stupid.

Well, Oda manages to do that speaking Japanese, so I don't think the language is necessarily a barrier in that regard...

I'm just betting that the weakness to battering rams will be ponies; +50% against cities -50% against ponies.

Weakness against ranged would make most sense. Also forcing careful use of them against cities with ranged garrisons (i.e. all of them).
 
Since the Battering Ram is replacing their spearman, they wont have an early counter to your own horses, and you'll also be able to chase down their archers with them. I'd guess that might be a decent counter... no-one has an early lancer-lite as a UU, do they? (Carthage's elephant might be, depending on where on the tree it fits)
 
Since the Battering Ram is replacing their spearman, they wont have an early counter to your own horses, and you'll also be able to chase down their archers with them. I'd guess that might be a decent counter.
Indeed, smart thinking :)

Do they start out with Animal Husbandry instead of Agriculture?
I doubt it as agriculture is a prerequisite of animal husbandry.
 
Back
Top Bottom