It would be nice if the Unique Units functioned like this:

[BigJMoney]

Whenever I play Civ3, I often wish the Unique Units were a bit more unique. The conquest mode in the final expansion does a good job with some of them. I hope for cIV they make an effort to make them more enjoyable; even if it does mean more attention directed towards balancing. I have some ideas, and I can only give examples. Take a few to see what I mean:

Rome: same legionary; can also build roads, outposts and fortresses

Carthage: war elephants, same as before; +2 hitpoints (start and max)

Russia: A modern era infantry unit that must disguise itself as the infantry unit from any Tribe that is currently at war. Also has slightly higher attack and defense. (the purpose of this unit is to allow russia to fight wars 'through' other Tribes; the idea is that Russia is equipping that tribe with better weaponry)

New Civ - Israel: A warrior-priest/judge unit that functions defensively as a spearman with a small defense bonus, but also negates the possibility for the city to culture-flip. (the idea is to keep some of these guys around into the modern era; ie. do NOT upgrade!)

Anyway, these were some brainstorms I had; I'm sure someone could do better. Yes, I got the legionary idea from Civ3: Conquest, it is not originally mine. It was what gave me the idea that the Civ series can do a heck of a lot better with their UUs.

=$= Big J Money =$=

[Optimizer]

I don't think that there should be civilization-unique units at all.

There is always a risk that they unbalance the game (which they did in Civ 3 at several instances).

I would rather see unique units that are granted the first civ to achieve certain kinds of feats.

[BigJMoney]

That's a neat idea too, but if they do that, it isn't 'Civilization' any more. I'm sure that most fans would be disappointed with that. Still a cool idea though, since it gives you more freedom to create your own, custom Civilization.

=$=

[alms66]

How is it not 'Civilization' anymore, when you consider that Civ 1 & 2 had no unique units, whatsoever?

[BigJMoney]

I stand corrected. I never played those games.

=$=

[LDiCesare]

I agree that UU's are unbalancing. You can disable them in civ3, though, so they aren't that much of a problem for those who dislike them.
Your proposal makes the units even more powerful, and I agree that having unique units based on something like building a wonder would be more interesting than based on initial civ. Who cares about the American advanced fighter or the German tank when you probably took over half the world by that time if you could build mounted warriors?

[Shogun Gunner]

I like Optimizer's approach. The first civ to a tech -- or some other unique event in the game -- permits to building of an unique unit. The game would flow better this way. Today people don't pick the American's because the UU is so far into the future as not to be useful.

Overall I do like the UU as it is an attempt to provide more texture to the game.

[Maquiladora]

The problem with these gifts for "first to get advance..." is the same problem with wonders, they unbalance the game, it gives the leader presents for being the leader. Imagine one player getting every special unit from the renaissance to modern.

Rather they should be given with performing feats that take time, like in Call to Power 2, first to sail around the world you get +1 movement on ships for a limited time, or you could get a special unit to build relative to the age youre in. Youre the first to recapture a city you get some buildable unit, again relative to the age youre currently in.

[LDiCesare]

You can also create a system of wonders which are mutually exclusive. For instance if you created a wonder allowing to create UU1 then you can't build other wonders which allow to create other UUs. This means being a leader would let you chose which unique unit you get, and not let you gain all of them.
I agree that feats in CtP2 are nice, but there is only the circumnavigation of the world that is worth talking about since the others are just "first to discover gunpowder" or other techs. Although there is also conquering back one of your cities which makes citizens happy.

[Maquiladora]

Theres also first to conquer by force feat, but thats kinda being the leader, or at least having enough power to kill a whole civ is plenty powerful. Also building a certain building in many cities feat, if you were an aggressive player you wouldnt build those.

I like the idea of mutually exclusive wonders though.

[GePap]

I like the UU system, because it highlights differences in tactics or army structure that did make real differences worldwide.

Personally, I would prefer a combat system more akin to SMAC's, and then in which civs got certain bonuses throughout, like better at sieges, after, or more powerful, cavalry, better defense with infantry, so forth and so on, so some civs would tend to try for different types of strategies.

[patcon]

To my mind, the biggest problem with UUs is when you have a civ whose UU requires a certain resource, but you stuck without access to that resource. I can't count the times I've played the Celts (for reasons of family heritage + cool traits) and there is no iron in reach. No iron = no Gallic swordsmen = 1 very angry Irishman.

[BigJMoney]

Yeah, it's hard for me to be objective about this, because I love Civ3, and I can't even imagine playing the game without UUs. I don't mind the idea of being able to get them by being the first to meet a kind of criteria or what-not, because it adds more to the idea that you are changing history, and creating your own unique version of a civilization.

Maybe they could combine that idea with what they did in Alpha Centauri (as another poster mentioned). This way, the different tribes would still be unique from each other, but you have the customizability options as well.

An example I can think of would be this:

Germans
Tribe ability: Gains slightly increased productivity during war-time.

If the germans wanted -- I don't know, let's say that the armored UU in the game is the 'Panzer' tank or something -- then they would have to meet whatever requirements are necessary to be able to gain the Panzer, after which they would be the only Tribe to be able to use it. The way you balance this kind of system is simple; you can only have a certain number of UUs. It's not like wonders where you can keep building and get all of them. You simply try and complete some kind of 'quest-like' task in the game and you gain the ability to use the unit. This would help with the resources problem, because, if gathering petroleum was one of the taks necessary for unlocking a Panzer, and you don't have petroleum, you will simply find another UU to try and unlock.

I think it would make for a neat game dynamic, because it puts the ball in the court of the player who is able to pull off researching the UU he wants; giving him some control over the game for a period of time. It also helps other players gauge the game. If their spy tells them that the Germans are working on unlocking the Panzer unit, they can figure that war is eminent... and if they can stop them, or beat them to it, they might even be able to halt the war before it begins.

=$=

[Optimizer]

I am completely against fixed civilization traits, because they are racist.

[Senethro]

I am completely for fixed civilization traits as they add variety to the game.

To be honest, I would be happier if the traits affected the game even more. SMAC, with less factions had more variety. Compare Miriam and Morgan.