Which of the ORIGINAL civilizations deserve a UA/UU/UB change the most?

[NukeAJS]

Really? Germany is on this list? I've played games where I made two combat units in the first 200 turns and ended up having an army of 30+ units -- and at -25% upkeep to boot. Many of the converted barbs were spearmen too and they upgrade into pikemen for a mere 10 gold.

They're kind of like Songhai. They require barb camps and lots of them to be effective.

I voted America. -25% land purchase is meh. +1 sight is meh. B52 bombers are normally pretty useless as they don't even enter the game. Minutemen are pretty good though. Still, they are a warmonger civ but there are at least ten other warmonger civs that are in a whole better league than America for this purpose.

As for India, I hate getting India on random but love playing India when I choose them. The elephant archer is the ultimate barb killer. The mughol fort gives a nice +2 culture and can be placed immediately with two different world wonders in addition to becoming super castles with Neiwenstien (whatever). Their UA is probably the best in the game for running any kind of tall empire and has a natural synergy with a cultural victory and culture making castles. India is a solid choice for a cultural victory at least right now. Since they're changing the cultural victory big-time, India might need to get revamped.

 

[Gucumatz]

Frankly if you get 30 barb camps you probably are doing something wrong or are on marathon/a longer speed, which makes the game much easier

Germany's UA is both a gamble and fairly useless on any standard (even Epic) or lower speed, multiplayer, higher level games (Deity/Immortal where camps tend to get cleared quicker unless you bake the settings heavily in your favour to even get a shot at using the part of the UA)

A Landsknecht spam is only so useful when range units dominate the world and the Panzer while a decent unit, comes extremely late and is followed soon by bombers that any decent player can show make land units relatively more obsolete. There is a reason Germany is consistently voted as one of the worst civs in game

 

[pilot00]

The problem with India is that there's no real benefit to having a bunch of happiness. For all intents and purposes, having 1 happiness is the same as 100. The only difference is how quickly you get Golden Ages, and ironically you want to keep your happiness down for that exact reason so that your Golden Ages come when you will benefit most from them.

In theory it affects culture if you go piety.....sigh....Who chooses piety these days though?

 

[JokerJace]

The problem with India is that there's no real benefit to having a bunch of happiness. For all intents and purposes, having 1 happiness is the same as 100. The only difference is how quickly you get Golden Ages, and ironically you want to keep your happiness down for that exact reason so that your Golden Ages come when you will benefit most from them.

Happiness is only worth thinking about when it's below 0, which is something that happens a lot for India. The only real happiness clench for tall civs is at the beginning of the game when they're trying to settle cities, which India is obviously much, much worse at than any other civ.

Actually, it is the other way around. You want to have as many Golden Ages (or Golden Ages for the longest period of the game) as possible and you decide what you build according to that. Timing it the other way around is waaay too circumstantial and not projectable. At least the circumstances are not proportional to the benefit in any way. (Maybe Persia being the exception, but Persia is not India) So 1 and 100 makes a big difference, just by the Golden Ages. Than of course you can get 50 more culture from a single tenet - win the alliance of all culturally questing CS easily - and the most important thing of it all: It's a ressource that allows you to trade a hell lot more of unhappiness for other benefits, like new foundings, conquerings, less depency on trade and so on and so on.

 

[wigwam]

Plus, the USA are the most visited country IN THE WORLD !

France is, by far, the most visited country in the world. The US is a distant second.

But yes, American culture, in the sense that BNW will model as "tourism," is obviously hugely influential in the world. I'd still prefer not to have America be a tourism-based civ in the game. I think themes like the frontier, immigration, "the land of opportunity," the US as the world's pioneering modern democracy, etc. are all a lot more compelling than "everybody buys Apple products and drinks Starbucks, +10% tourism."

I would change it, though—not because the American UA is bad, but just because it's boring. It's one of the few UAs that doesn't encourage the player to do anything in particular (China and Russia are both pretty bad in this regard too, although at least as Russia you can trade some extra Horses and Iron around). I also don't think it captured the idea of manifest destiny very well.

India's the worst, though.

 

[Hans Castorp]

The Maya's uniques work together better than any other civ i know, and in a manner that is very flexible. They are unquestionably powerful. Especially since they often start near salt, at least i have found that. I would give it a jungle start bias to at least give it a little slap in the face for the early game.

Agreed, the Maya are great. But a jungle start could make them even more powerful gien the near certainty of an early pantheon, they can just choose Sacred Paths or whatever the Jungle one is and get a huge boost to culture output too. Only downside would be a potential tech detour through mining and bronze working rather than beelining theology, but that's a question of strategy. As it stands, you can cun run rampant with culture with the Aztecs and Sacred Path in the early game.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Actually, it is the other way around. You want to have as many Golden Ages (or Golden Ages for the longest period of the game) as possible and you decide what you build according to that. Timing it the other way around is waaay too circumstantial and not projectable. At least the circumstances are not proportional to the benefit in any way. (Maybe Persia being the exception, but Persia is not India) So 1 and 100 makes a big difference, just by the Golden Ages. Than of course you can get 50 more culture from a single tenet - win the alliance of all culturally questing CS easily - and the most important thing of it all: It's a ressource that allows you to trade a hell lot more of unhappiness for other benefits, like new foundings, conquerings, less depency on trade and so on and so on.

Nope, you don't. The percentage bonuses towards production and culture encourage you to stall your Golden Ages until you have a lot of hammers and culture so you can get the biggest benefit from them. As Golden Ages get more expensive each time you start one you don't want it too early.

I like how you completely ignored my point about how bad India is at getting up the other 3 cities for a Tradition start, by the way.

 

[Gucumatz]

Its even worse on higher levels because of the higher happiness penalties for founding new cities. India is a nightmare right now

 

[Thyme1994]

France is, by far, the most visited country in the world. The US is a distant second.

My bad, I need to check wikipedia more often before i write stuff and claim it as facts

"everybody buys Apple products and drinks Starbucks, +10% tourism."

good point, that does sound pretty lame haha ^^
Hmm then how about a UA about them being a diplomacy/ideology powerhouse perhaps combined with some tourism based bonus for extra flavor ?

Something like "get bonus (idk perhaps 15%) influence for your ideology, if your culture is dominant in other civs" ?

I'd say it would represent the US and their achievements in history fairly accurately, and on top of that it would be a neat bonus that's centered around the late game (and that's what BNW is trying to improve after all).

Plus it's way better (in my opinion atleast ) than the current war/expansionist based UA we currently have for them.

 

[seancolorado]

America's UA is called 'Manifest Destiny.' What does that have to do with tourism?

Yes, America is a leader of tourism today, but they would have to completely change their UA name for it to make sense. (That's what they did with Ancien Regime, but that's because the new mechanics called for it - I'm not convinced the new mechanics call for America to change. We'll see though)

 

[Furycrab]

Really? Germany is on this list? I've played games where I made two combat units in the first 200 turns and ended up having an army of 30+ units -- and at -25% upkeep to boot. Many of the converted barbs were spearmen too and they upgrade into pikemen for a mere 10 gold.

They're kind of like Songhai. They require barb camps and lots of them to be effective.

I voted America. -25% land purchase is meh. +1 sight is meh. B52 bombers are normally pretty useless as they don't even enter the game. Minutemen are pretty good though. Still, they are a warmonger civ but there are at least ten other warmonger civs that are in a whole better league than America for this purpose.

As for India, I hate getting India on random but love playing India when I choose them. The elephant archer is the ultimate barb killer. The mughol fort gives a nice +2 culture and can be placed immediately with two different world wonders in addition to becoming super castles with Neiwenstien (whatever). Their UA is probably the best in the game for running any kind of tall empire and has a natural synergy with a cultural victory and culture making castles. India is a solid choice for a cultural victory at least right now. Since they're changing the cultural victory big-time, India might need to get revamped.

Personally I kinda like the American civ, or at least I don't hate it when I get it. The +1 sight translates easily into better early game scouting/gold, unless of course you are the kind to who likes to reload after knowing your surroundings little bit cheaty style. The landgrab is very meh, but it goes well with the idea that you have quick scouting and can place cities and land grab aggressively. The minutemen win wars, so I kinda like them. The bombers are very meh, but with the extended late game in BNW they will see more use.

Problem I think everyone has with India, is that the bonus doesn't translate well into bigger cities. A good tradition player will have his cities constantly growing anyways and you'll be slowed by food a hell of a lot more than by happiness. It looks good on paper, doesn't really pan out in practice unless you pickup Hanging Gardens and a few other things. Seeing how top end players basically play wonderless, you can see the issue.

 

[kingchris20]

America's UA will be helpful as it is, with land units having +1 sight, they can find archeological dig sites a little easier, and with their ability to purchase tiles at half cost, they could also put them in their borders easier.

I'd say America is one of the "least-in-need" of a UA change.......compared to someone like India

 

[Arachnofiend]

Yeah as far as game mechanics go America is pretty much fine

I just feel left out when the nationalists waltz in and say that so-and-so Moderate European Medieval Power That I Just So Happen To Live In deserves to be in the game. I need something to be overly indignant about too! :U

 

[codepoet]

America's UA will be helpful as it is, with land units having +1 sight, they can find archeological dig sites a little easier, and with their ability to purchase tiles at half cost, they could also put them in their borders easier.

I'd say America is one of the "least-in-need" of a UA change.......compared to someone like India

I don't think finding dig sites will be a problem of visibility? Late game you've probably explored the whole map anyway...

 

[maxp]

I think its strange so many people have an issue with Indias UA.

For the most part, UAs aren't meant to be advantageous, they are just meant to encourage trying new play styles. A tall empire might not be the best strategy to win, but we have all tried it for the sake of it.

If you play as a random Civ, and get Gandhi, you might decide to go for a one city victory. Just like if you get Theodora you try to found a religion, even though there is no UA advantage to get one. The Old UA for France encouraged a wide empire, and the new version will encourage Paris to be tall.

Civ is all about trialling new approaches, and the UA is how it encourages us to do so, even though we could always choose the same VC or CIV. Its what makes getting a new civ fun.

 

[Unresolved]

I think its strange so many people have an issue with Indias UA.

For the most part, UAs aren't meant to be advantageous, they are just meant to encourage trying new play styles. A tall empire might not be the best strategy to win, but we have all tried it for the sake of it.

If you play as a random Civ, and get Gandhi, you might decide to go for a one city victory. Just like if you get Theodora you try to found a religion, even though there is no UA advantage to get one. The Old UA for France encouraged a wide empire, and the new version will encourage Paris to be tall.

Civ is all about trialling new approaches, and the UA is how it encourages us to do so, even though we could always choose the same VC or CIV. Its what makes getting a new civ fun.

A tall empire is actually the most dominant strategy available right now. But with the exception of India, every civ's UA is advantageous with no drawbacks. At the very least, the UA's are rendered useless(see Spain without any natural wonders), but not harmful. India's UA is only advantageous in the mid-game and later. But the most important turns of the game are in the beginning of the game(roughly the first 100 turns) and at that point, India's UA actually hurts you because the doubled city unhappiness is larger than the halved population unhappiness. This results in a slower start which will hurt the rest of the game. That's why every thread that asks about fixing civilizations or puts them into tiers degenerates into a 'How do we fix India?' thread.

 

[Gucumatz]

Except it does none of that, it limits what any other civ could otherwise do, the UB is relatively unsynergetic and useless, the fact that it limits a player without any real advantage/trade off shows why its one of the least played Vanilla civs in game according to steam

Tall empires are incredibly powerful, India is bad at that too relatively

Edit: Ninjaed by above

 

[kingchris20]

I don't think finding dig sites will be a problem of visibility? Late game you've probably explored the whole map anyway...

You're right, I remember them saying something about the dig sites are like any other resource, when you research archaeology they appear on the map........but I think they should've done it more like barbarians (ie there are some that stay hidden in the darkness until you get a unit close enough to be visible)

but either way, having +1 sight is beneficial for just about everything

 

[Dudu42]

I voted for Rome, since it has two UU's and no special UB, which is ironic since the Romans were incredible builders in antiquity and had several buildings - particularly the forum - that would well represent the personality of their culture and cities. The UA is OK but sort of lame without a UB to make it really worth having. I could easily see giving up the ranged unit for a good UB. As it is, I only play Rome with a mod that does precisely this.

Honestly, take ballista out and put colos seum as their UB.

I know, that won't happen, at least in Civ V. But I can't stand the colosseum.
Imagine yourself playing with India, building a colosseum. Or in modern age, building a colosseum in a new found city. What now? Those humanist gentlemen are up for some old fashioned man murder action?

And it's not even a "colosseum", actually, but an arena. Colosseum should be, definitely, a WW.
For UB, forum is a good idea, replacing market. Or maybe public bath replacing gardens.
But colosseuns are one of the game's elements that bothers me the most.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Civs I think should be changed:
India- beaten to death. Give them religion or give them death!... Or just give them any ability at all. Literally anything else would be more helpful.
Germany: What can I say? The zulu beat them on every level. For that, they need an overhaul to remain competitive.
Japan: okay, lets see: An ability rendered useles due to the changes in combat (longer, more time for enemies to heal, wounds have less effect, all focused in one area) check. A lackluster UU that does nothing of particular note? Check. A UU that's worthless in most situations, and unavailable in the situations it would help in? Check. Yeah, Japan needs some help.
Iroqouis: The mohawk "never numered more than 3,000", and are attatched to a civ known for fightimg while outnumbered. Why give them a quick spam unit? And the UB can be WORSE than the BB it replaces in many cases. Lastly, the "in your own territories" part really screws them.
Civs I think are fine but others don't like:
America: I'll be the first pro america to say this: Every single part of this civilization is terrible. Absolute rubish. However, it is how all these parts come together so flawlessly that makes this Civ a worthy opponent and a fine civ. Every part of this ability is helpful to every other part in a meaningful way, a rare accomplishment for any civ in the game. Nothing could make them have better ability cooperation, so don't try!
Arabia: the bazaar will keep them perfectly competitive.