Unique Units.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon
The UU's do need to be carefully balanced though. As it stands the Iroquois Mounted Warrior is the best UU in the game and makes conquests pretty easy.

I have to echo Skywalker's comments on this. A dubious generalization to say the least. a great unit, but the best?

[TechWins]

I think the idea of 2 UUs for one Civ is horrible to be blunt about it. Think of the Civs that receive two early game UUs. Those Civs are gaining a huge advantage over a Civ like the Americans who wouldn't get their UUs till later on. It would be far too unbalancing to allow 2 UUs per Civ.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by TechWins
I think the idea of 2 UUs for one Civ is horrible to be blunt about it. Think of the Civs that receive two early game UUs. Those Civs are gaining a huge advantage over a Civ like the Americans who wouldn't get their UUs till later on. It would be far too unbalancing to allow 2 UUs per Civ.

I agree with this. And if you restrict it to one per era, then what are you going to do for a one era civ, ie. aztecs? make up some modern unit for them? blech

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by TechWins
I think the idea of 2 UUs for one Civ is horrible to be blunt about it. Think of the Civs that receive two early game UUs. Those Civs are gaining a huge advantage over a Civ like the Americans who wouldn't get their UUs till later on. It would be far too unbalancing to allow 2 UUs per Civ.

Actually, they may be worse off than America. Having 2 UU's early on would make it very difficult not to trigger your GA without avoiding war completely. America is actually better off because they can save their GA. Plus, America has good traits for REXing.

[TechWins]

Actually, they may be worse off than America. Having 2 UU's early on would make it very difficult not to trigger your GA without avoiding war completely. America is actually better off because they can save their GA. Plus, America has good traits for REXing.

Slightly hard for the Americans to get that late game GA when they're deceased.

However, the point wasn't about the Americans per se, but that it's too unbalancing having 2 UUs for each civ. Some even believe 1 UU for each civ is unbalancing as is let alone adding one more to each civ. 1 UU for each civ is good, and it should go no less no more.

I do like the idea of other unique units being in the game via wonders and such (i.e. Statue of Zeus & Knights Templar). I hope this is done again in Civ4.

[Kuciwalker]

Lack of an Ancient Era UU isn't going to kill you. Many civ's have UU's that you almost never use, and they're fine. America isn't going to just flop in the early game, especially because of its traits.

[Sandman]

Add me to the list of those who dislike UUs. The less time they spend on them, the better.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

The UU's do need to be carefully balanced though. As it stands the Iroquois Mounted Warrior is the best UU in the game and makes conquests pretty easy.

Be careful about statements like this - many people would disagree about ANY blanket statement about the "best" UU, and quite a few others would disagree with attaching it to that specific unit.

The most powerful UU's tend to be those early in the game like the Immortal. The Egyptian Chariot sucks as the Horseman quickly renders it worthless. The Legionary is good as a defensive unit as is the hoplite. But for speed and power the MW has no peer up until the Knight.

Whereas normal Horsemen have a tough time attacking cities defended by spearmen, MW's get the job done quite easily. And if you add to that the Expansionist trait then it is very easy to get a good overview of the world quite quickly and then send the hordes out to destroy.

If you do as I do and have masses of Mounted Warriors conquering the hell out of everything then you either win by conquest or end up dominating so much territory that you will inevitably win the game.

[polypheus]

I would prefer that all UUs be available only through Wonders. That way, they are not pre-destined to any Civ. This was one of my major philosophical objections to UUs during the development of Civ3. I still feel this way although I grudgingly play with them despite this objection due to their value of differentiating Civs and introducing a uniqifying element to the game.

It's true that UUs might no longer match their real life counterparts. But then again, that was the whole point of Wonders. Pyramids could be built by anyone not just Egypt for example. So I see no problem if "Legions" were built by, say, Germany rather than Rome. This also makes more sense in that if England ends up being landlocked, it makes more sense that England might build the Wonder for making the UU "Cossacks" or some such rather than "Man-o-War".

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by TechWins
I think the idea of 2 UUs for one Civ is horrible to be blunt about it. Think of the Civs that receive two early game UUs. Those Civs are gaining a huge advantage over a Civ like the Americans who wouldn't get their UUs till later on. It would be far too unbalancing to allow 2 UUs per Civ.

Hmm, I think I do agree... but it should be 1 UU coming in the end of a unique tech-branch. That branch can contain a unique unit, a unique building, and a unique wonder. In that case, you should have to build the unique wonder to get access to the unique unit! Then all Civs can have a wonder too. Nice thing on higher levels.


This would look a bit like the C3C medieval campaign, where there are different trees meant for the different civs. So you can in theory get another UU, but it's all up to the player...

So for reasearching your particular branch there should be a bonus, or there should be a penalty for reserching another civs unique branch, so that the AI and the player would not prioritize another civs unique branch. Nevertheless, tech-trading could make several civs get another civ techs, but that's not a big deal since you can only build the unique wonder. They could also be coded non-tradable. It this a better idea than Unique Items?

NB:
I played C3C with 5 civs all having the Berserkir, it was a bit weird but it was fun...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
The most powerful UU's tend to be those early in the game like the Immortal.

Yup, the Panzer and the Sipahi are so worthless

Oh, and btw, your statement IS partly true by virtue of the fact that nearly all of the UU's are from the Ancient Era or early Medievel

The Egyptian Chariot sucks as the Horseman quickly renders it worthless.

No, they don't - it costs 2/3 the amount a Horseman does, so you can have HALF AGAIN AS MANY OF THEM. Wouldn't you say 15 horsmen are more powerful than 10?

The Legionary is good as a defensive unit as is the hoplite. But for speed and power the MW has no peer up until the Knight.

Try the Gallic Swordsman, perhaps? I would argue that the GS, the Immortal, and the Hoplite (among many others) are more (in some cases, much more) powerful than the MW.

Whereas normal Horsemen have a tough time attacking cities defended by spearmen, MW's get the job done quite easily. And if you add to that the Expansionist trait then it is very easy to get a good overview of the world quite quickly and then send the hordes out to destroy.

So the UU is good. So what? It isn't unbalanced (in case you didn't notice, many people play civs OTHER than the Iroquois) and it is definately not "the best". Also, horsemen don't really "have trouble" with those cities, because of retreat (yes, I know MW's have this too).

If you do as I do and have masses of Mounted Warriors conquering the hell out of everything then you either win by conquest or end up dominating so much territory that you will inevitably win the game.

Trust me, the Iroquois don't in any way guarantee the game.

[ThePlagueRat]

skywalker, this is all civ3 units... Why not discuss potential civ4 units? Would be more interresting!