Which Civ in Civ 5 deserves a redo more than any other?

[apocalypse105]

suggestions for buffing England:
Additionally to the current trait they could increase the gold benefit from cities connected by harbors. As the dominant naval world power they have been for centuries, they would deserve something like that. Or maybe a UB harbor replacement (is the building even called harbor in the English version, don´t know cause I got the German one), providing more gold or happiness. Although the ship-of-the-line is strong indeed, a land UU would be more powerful, as navy is generally not so important in ciV. What about a strong rifleman replacement - Redcoats? Maybe with increased combat strength or more movement.

Beside the English, I guess the Ottomans should be buffed. Their trait really su**s imo.

They should ad a unique ability about archers england pride where archers and there navy

 

[PasturedCow]

I'd like to see england get bonuses to their UA as well. What about some concepts from Thal's mod? Like say all lighthouses and harbours get +2 production. Their current ship bonus is almost useless.

 

[bcaiko]

My first instinct is to say Germany. I've just never seen them be successful. Their UA isn't useful going into more modern eras, and despite the Panzer getting much better with the Tank buffs (and MI debuffs) in the latest patches, it's no savior for the underbalancing of German's UA and other UU.

 

[Nightshades]

My first instinct is to say Germany. I've just never seen them be successful. Their UA isn't useful going into more modern eras, and despite the Panzer getting much better with the Tank buffs (and MI debuffs) in the latest patches, it's no savior for the underbalancing of German's UA and other UU.

Well imo you fail to see it in the long run.
Germanys UA is not just about "recruiting" barbarians at a 50% rate - their UA is about getting a military lead over any other civilization. It requires a certain playstyle as well since you have to actually explore your starting position. Then you should seek out barbarian encampments when they spawn (only germany gets this kind of notice - other civs have to look for encampments or be lucky to have one spawn near their territory. So with proper scouting and search n destroy -tactics on barb encampments, you can gather a large army pretty early in the game: you get warriors from barbarians, and gold to buy archers. The UA is actually in perfectly synergy with the two UU's.
After you get those early warriors, you upgrade them to Landsknecht for like - no gold at all coz they are so cheap. And those units stick with you up until the renessance and the cavalry. But if you do a tech jump (saving GS', etc) to get combustion you get panzers.

Germany is very underestimated imo. But their UA and UU's gives you a military advantage through out the entire game.

 

[chazzycat]

+1 vote for England. Having the fastest ships just isn't as important in the game as it was in real life. Controlling the seas is easy with other races due to poor naval AI. The longbow is nice. I think their bonus should give extra gold in the capital for overseas puppets, that would make sense for imperialism and London could be the financial capital of the world like in real life.

 

[ShahJahanII]

+1 vote for England. Having the fastest ships just isn't as important in the game as it was in real life. Controlling the seas is easy with other races due to poor naval AI. The longbow is nice. I think their bonus should give extra gold in the capital for overseas puppets, that would make sense for imperialism and London could be the financial capital of the world like in real life.

I would much rather have that for a Dutch civ.

 

[chazzycat]

it would really make sense for either, and the Dutch don't exist yet. They both used similiar strategies to set up their empires (namely, conquest and capitalism) and controlled their vast overseas empire from one super-city mega financial center.

 

[SHaW1986]

I'd have to say America and Germany

 

[apocalypse105]

I'd have to say America and Germany

America DOnt need a buff its bonus for seeing extra line of sight is underestimated its powerfull and the discount of purchasing tiles is a good bonus wich stays throughout the game wants some oil buy it it doenst cost much.

There units are awesome

 

[Jewman]

i dont understand why the english only get 2 extra moves meanwhile denmark gets 1 extra move AND the sea to land bonus AND 2 great UUs. why can dennmark have awesome uu and ua but not england? if anything they should get a bonus that makes the capital start off with 25% income and each trade route adds .5 happiness or something...

 

[TommyVern]

A lot of the UA's are pretty lackluster, mainly due to them being very, very situational as well as dependent on the map type you're playing on. Personally, I think a majority of the civs got kinda screwed. It'll be cool to see some stronger UA's, and if ever civ had a stronger UA, they'd sort of balance each other out a little bit.

 

[Louis XXIV]

i dont understand why the english only get 2 extra moves meanwhile denmark gets 1 extra move AND the sea to land bonus AND 2 great UUs. why can dennmark have awesome uu and ua but not england? if anything they should get a bonus that makes the capital start off with 25% income and each trade route adds .5 happiness or something...

The Danes only get it for embarked units, iirc. However, I agree. That weakened the English (who didn't need weakening to begin with).

 

[Snuffleupagus]

I'm always amazed that these conversations focus on the English rather than the Ottomans. What am I missing?

The Ottoman's UA is terrible. It's just terrible.

One of their UU's is really good, but it replaces a unit that is often skipped over in most strategies. The other UU is junk.

?

 

[chazzycat]

The Ottomans UA used to be terrible, now it's merely bad. Paying only 1/3rd maintenance at least means you can keep those barb ships you converted around. Then you can upgrade them to frigates and go conquer pretty much any coastal city you want, without paying for much maintenance that whole time.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm always amazed that these conversations focus on the English rather than the Ottomans. What am I missing?

The Ottoman's UA is terrible. It's just terrible.

One of their UU's is really good, but it replaces a unit that is often skipped over in most strategies. The other UU is junk.

?

But it's upgradable and you can keep the ability. 10 Infantry that heal after attack and some Artillery will conquer the map.

 

[ShahJahanII]

To be honest, I think the Ottoman UA is average.
Some ships are as good as siege units.
Just spam a bunch of these and you'll be good to go.
Even if you don't like the UA, the Ottomans are better than the English.
Lets compare this way.

As you see, the Ottomans are better in every way.

 

[apocalypse105]

To be honest, I think the Ottoman UA is average.
Some ships are as good as siege units.
Just spam a bunch of these and you'll be good to go.
Even if you don't like the UA, the Ottomans are better than the English.
Lets compare this way.

As you see, the Ottomans are better in every way.

Nice one... I kinda agree their unique ability and ship of the line are bad..

They should add someting like the redcout as unique unit...

And as uniuqe ability Ship and archers +1 movement and gain the moral promotion and they gain more experience then other units..

Or someting like that...

You know whem I am thinxing about it they should rather give polynesian special ability to england maybe i am overreacting..

However I am really disapointed that even I am Dutch England has allways been my favorite civ in every game from civilization to age of empires.. The redcouds!! Now I just dont have that feeling

 

[Snuffleupagus]

Huh, well, I will defer to those who (I assume) have more game experience.

I just think it's funny that England's ability is considered really bad because naval units are unimportant, it's limitted to games with lots of water, and the naval AI is bad that it doesn't really matter. But Ottoman's have an entirely naval ability which also suffers from all of these limitations. In addition, part of their naval ability requires you to use it at the very start of the game when there are barbarian naval units out there. Arguably the importance of naval units at the start of the game is at a minimum (the barbarians don't actually blockade you anyway), and the opportunity cost to build an early ship to go conquer barbarians is fairly high.

Naval units can be good as seige units in the late game, but by then I don't think upkeep is a huge factor in the game.

But that's just my experience.

Sipahi is 7/10? I don't mean to actually argue this, I'm just curious. People build lancers? I just don't find them nearly as useful as other equivalent cost units.

I think Bowman are better than 6/10 and the Janissary is only good because you can upgrade it. But I'll confess that they are pretty awesome.

I don't mean to argue (can you tell by the way I disagree with everything ) But, I just feel genuine surprise that the English are always the focus of these talks. Personally I feel the problem with England's UA is not the UA itself, but how poor naval combat is generally.

If naval combat was fixed to be useful and more dependent on tactics, that would be the best way to fix the English UA in my opinion.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Redcoats were ok - never anything special. It was the dominance of the sea that was to England's advantage. On land, they always had strong competition in France or Prussia. All their traits make sense, they're just not very good.

ETA: Longbows are better than Sipahi. I can't say they're spectacular, but a range of three is great.

 

[apocalypse105]

Huh, well, I will defer to those who (I assume) have more game experience.

I just think it's funny that England's ability is considered really bad because naval units are unimportant, it's limitted to games with lots of water, and the naval AI is bad that it doesn't really matter. But Ottoman's have an entirely naval ability which also suffers from all of these limitations. In addition, part of their naval ability requires you to use it at the very start of the game when there are barbarian naval units out there. Arguably the importance of naval units at the start of the game is at a minimum (the barbarians don't actually blockade you anyway), and the opportunity cost to build an early ship to go conquer barbarians is fairly high.

Naval units can be good as seige units in the late game, but by then I don't think upkeep is a huge factor in the game.

But that's just my experience.

Sipahi is 7/10? I don't mean to actually argue this, I'm just curious. People build lancers? I just don't find them nearly as useful as other equivalent cost units.

I think Bowman are better than 6/10 and the Janissary is only good because you can upgrade it. But I'll confess that they are pretty awesome.

I don't mean to argue (can you tell by the way I disagree with everything ) But, I just feel genuine surprise that the English are always the focus of these talks. Personally I feel the problem with England's UA is not the UA itself, but how poor naval combat is generally.

If naval combat was fixed to be useful and more dependent on tactics, that would be the best way to fix the English UA in my opinion.

Its funny that firaxis dont know history Lancers where cavalry with a lot of armor and a long giant lance to kill infantry They where used to charge lines of infantry But they lack the ability to go head to head against cavalry ..

Dragoons or cavalry with rifles(cavalry in civ 5) where mainly used to hunt down cavalry because they had the same speed So they could chase the cavalry and shoot them down... And for hit and run atacks..

THis has allways been in every strategy game dragoons where to kill cavlary lancers and other melee cavalry to kill lines of infantry and of course artillery They couldn't stand against pikeman and some musketeers wich had bayonets mostly slow firing infantry but thats a other story

Still dont know why they thought of making the lancer a anti cavalry unit . it would balance the game verry wel if it was anti infantry to counter rifleman and cavalry gets a bonus against mounted