A new approach to unique units

[wrylachlan]

How do you balance the synergy between UU and traits? There's a reason a militaristic civ doesn't get Javalin Throwers...

[Optimizer]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
How do you balance the synergy between UU and traits? There's a reason a militaristic civ doesn't get Javalin Throwers...

I'd like the traits to be removed, or at least flexible. The idea that Mongols are militaristic by birth is nothing less than racism.

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Optimizer

I'd like the traits to be removed, or at least flexible. The idea that Mongols are militaristic by birth is nothing less than racism.

Where is the racism in it?
In Civ, militaristic just means that you have a higher chance to get promoted during fighting, including a higher chance for military great leaders, and that military improvements are cheaper.
It doesn't mean that the given civ would be more aggressive or more likely to attack anyone else...

I think, you mix that up with your understanding of the term "militaristic".

[lajzar]

How do you balance the synergy between UU and traits? There's a reason a militaristic civ doesn't get Javalin Throwers...

Ah, the enslave ability, combined with cheaper military improvements and faster promotion.

Well, a number of points. First, I favour a public works system, so any slaves created would become non-combat units that you can move to a city and add to the population (the system will remember their slave status), or sacrifice if you are a blood cult gov. Second, the idea that onlt 2 or 3 civs ever had slaves is somewhat conceited. All civs should have access to some kind of slaver unit. Unless you can point me to a case where a civ never had any kind of enslavement of course.

Third, the idea that a civ starts with a particular cultural trait and retains that forever is somewhat deterministic imho. Civs should start either with no traits (or randomly determined ones), and it should be a long term effort to change a cultural trait, but it should be possible. If I were the mongols and the random number generator placed me on an island, I'd be pretty motivated to become seafaring. Similarly, if I found I needed to fight a lot, I would try and make my civ militaristic.

Cultural traits is probably the only area where I'd agree that a SMAC governemnt style interface makes sense. But it shouldn't be so easy to change these traits. Probably you should have to declare your new trait ahead of time, and it should take a long time to take effect, maybe 20-40 turns.

The existing traits need some balancing anyway. Each should also have some kind of penalty associated with the trait as well as a bonus.

[Optimizer]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
Where is the racism in it?
In Civ, militaristic just means that you have a higher chance to get promoted during fighting, including a higher chance for military great leaders, and that military improvements are cheaper.
It doesn't mean that the given civ would be more aggressive or more likely to attack anyone else...

I think, you mix that up with your understanding of the term "militaristic".

I fully understand the rules for the different ciilization traits. But to be a good Civ player, you _must_ take advantage of your traits. I want the opportunity to be a peaceful Zulu leader!

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Optimizer

I fully understand the rules for the different ciilization traits. But to be a good Civ player, you _must_ take advantage of your traits. I want the opportunity to be a peaceful Zulu leader!

That I do understand. What I do not understand, why would the militaristic trait force you to go to war?
You may use the cheap barracks for building an excellent defensive military, which will deter any possible enemy to attack you. If he would do, you would be glad to have good military capacities. So, where is the problem?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by lajzar
Ah, the enslave ability, combined with cheaper military improvements and faster promotion.

Well, a number of points. First, I favour a public works system, so any slaves created would become non-combat units that you can move to a city and add to the population (the system will remember their slave status), or sacrifice if you are a blood cult gov. Second, the idea that onlt 2 or 3 civs ever had slaves is somewhat conceited. All civs should have access to some kind of slaver unit. Unless you can point me to a case where a civ never had any kind of enslavement of course.

Third, the idea that a civ starts with a particular cultural trait and retains that forever is somewhat deterministic imho. Civs should start either with no traits (or randomly determined ones), and it should be a long term effort to change a cultural trait, but it should be possible. If I were the mongols and the random number generator placed me on an island, I'd be pretty motivated to become seafaring. Similarly, if I found I needed to fight a lot, I would try and make my civ militaristic.

Cultural traits is probably the only area where I'd agree that a SMAC governemnt style interface makes sense. But it shouldn't be so easy to change these traits. Probably you should have to declare your new trait ahead of time, and it should take a long time to take effect, maybe 20-40 turns.

The existing traits need some balancing anyway. Each should also have some kind of penalty associated with the trait as well as a bonus.

I wan't just talking about the enslave ability. But certain UUs are better than others, and the ones that are better tend to go to the civs whose traits make it so they need them at that point in the game. I guess my point is that there needs to be some balancing. If every civ has access to every UU, then the UU's themselves need to balanced in relation to the traits. For example if an agricultural/seafaring civ chooses a Javelin Thrower, it costs x amount of shields, if a militaristic civ gets Javelin Throwers, they cost x +10 or something like that.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I wan't just talking about the enslave ability. But certain UUs are better than others, and the ones that are better tend to go to the civs whose traits make it so they need them at that point in the game.

Eh? You seriously believe someone at Firaxis actually balanced those UUs and traits? They look more like flavour units and abilities that weren't properly balanced, merely put together to reflect the historical civilisation.

I suppose you could explain how teh French got the musketeer? With that combination of commercial and industrious (or whatever it was, it typing while slighlt drunk), they should probably only get a ocean liner as their UU - a super fast modern transport.

In any case, since all civs will have equal opportunity to get the UUs in this system, the UUs don't need blancing as such, beyond making sure they aren't super-powered for their era. They are only unbalancing if you believe the leader shouldn't get some kind of advantage from being the leader.

To be sure of maintaining reasonable balance, you'd probably need at least (twice) as many UUs in the ancient age as potential major civs. That seems to be the approach they took in the original design. But as long as no UU is more than, say 33% more powerful than the base unit in the principal attribute, it shouldn't be a big issue.

[Optimizer]

Originally posted by Commander Bello


That I do understand. What I do not understand, why would the militaristic trait force you to go to war?
You may use the cheap barracks for building an excellent defensive military, which will deter any possible enemy to attack you. If he would do, you would be glad to have good military capacities. So, where is the problem?

No war, no unit promotions. No promotions, no great leaders. And then you lose the main advantage of being militaristic.

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Optimizer

No war, no unit promotions. No promotions, no great leaders. And then you lose the main advantage of being militaristic.

This main advantage has *mainly* gone with C3C, anyway.
But, if you are not going to war, you have to replace less units, thus allowing you to put those shields into improvements and wonders.
So, when being the peaceful leader the militaristic trait neither gives you very decisive advantages, nor does it hamper you significantly.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by lajzar
Eh? You seriously believe someone at Firaxis actually balanced those UUs and traits? They look more like flavour units and abilities that weren't properly balanced, merely put together to reflect the historical civilisation.

I suppose you could explain how teh French got the musketeer? With that combination of commercial and industrious (or whatever it was, it typing while slighlt drunk), they should probably only get a ocean liner as their UU - a super fast modern transport.

In any case, since all civs will have equal opportunity to get the UUs in this system, the UUs don't need blancing as such, beyond making sure they aren't super-powered for their era. They are only unbalancing if you believe the leader shouldn't get some kind of advantage from being the leader.

To be sure of maintaining reasonable balance, you'd probably need at least (twice) as many UUs in the ancient age as potential major civs. That seems to be the approach they took in the original design. But as long as no UU is more than, say 33% more powerful than the base unit in the principal attribute, it shouldn't be a big issue.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about the balance issue. I think that most UU's are pretty balanced with regard to the traits. Just for fun try modding the Aztecs to have Javelin Throwers and Maya to have Chasqui. See what happens. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the aztecs will be nearly unbeatable.